RALSTON 


PSALMQDfi 


I^TBR^RY 


op  THE 


Theological   Seminary, 

PRINCETON,    N.  J. 

<^"*^' Oi«s,on.,    BV.     . 

S'^^'f. S^cilu.      5f  ^ 

u     ■  ./f^L. 


Bookf 


/  »       4  it 


.«    4 


<  i.       » 


*'       ^ 


DEFENCE 


AN  INQUIRY  INTO  THE  PROPRIETY   OF   USING  AN 


EVANGELICAL  PSALMODY 


IN  THE  WORSHIP  OF  GOD 


AGAINST  THE  OBJECTIONS  OF  REV.  JOHN  T,  PRESSIT,  D.  D, 


SAMUEL  RALSTON,  D.  D, 


"  Let  the  word  of  Christ  dwell  in  you  richly  in  all  wisdom,  teaching 
and  admonishing  one  another  in  Psalms,  and  hymns  and  spiritual 
songs,  singing  with  grace  in  your  hearts  to  the  Lord." — Col.  3  :  16. 


PITTSBURGH : 

PRINTED  BY  GEORGE  PARKIN,  FOURTH  ST. 
.  1844. 


PREFACE 


There  is  no  subject  in  the  circle  of  Theology  on  which  so  much 
has  been  written  for  the  last  fifty  years,  by  mr-mbers  of  the  difterent 
branches  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  as  that  of  Psalmody.  The  Rev. 
JoHX  Anderson,  D.  D.,  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Gordon,  Walker  and 
M'Masters,  D.  D.,  have  written  in  favor  of  a  restrictive  Psalmody, 
or  that  the  Church,  in  her  praises  of  God,  should  confine  herself  to  the 
book  of  Psalms :  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Black, 
Latta,  D.  D.,  Freeman,  Ruffner  ancl  Baird  have  written  in 
defence  of  what  is  usually  called  a  Gospel  Psalmody.  The  leader 
may  reasonably  suppose  that  the  subject  must  have  been  exhausted  on 
both  sides,  and  may  be  ready  to  ask,  wiiat  necessity  can  there  be  for 
another  publication  on  the  subject.  The  history  of  the  present  pub- 
lication is  this:  The  Rev.  Mr.  Reed,  of  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church  in  Erie,  some  years  ago  published  a  treatise  on  the  prophecies, 
entitled,  "The  seven  last  Plagues,"  in  which  he  tells  us  that  one  or 
two  of  "  the  N-ials  of  the  wrath  of  God  "  will  be  poured  out  on  those 
who  have  introduced  what  he  calls  "  human  inventions  in  the'  worship 
of  God,"  and  among  which  he  classes  singing  what  is  usually  called 
hymns  and  spiritual  songs.  We  deemed  it  a  duty  to  notice  tiiis  inter- 
pretation, in  an  "Inquiry  into  the  propriety  of  using  an  Evangelical 
Psalm  )dy  in  the  worship  of  God,"  appended  to  our  little  treatise  on 
the  prophecies.  Dr.  Pressly,  of  the  same  church,  and  Professor  in 
her  Theological  Seminary,  in  the  city  tf  Allegheny,  reviewed  this  "In- 
quiry," and  the  following  observations  are  a  reply  to  his  "  Review  and 
Remarks." 

We  would  here  apprise  the  reader,  that  he  will  find  a  considerable 
repetition  of  the  same  ideas  in  the  following  pages.  This  was  unavoid- 
able on  our  part;  for  after  Dr.  P.  had  reviewed  our  "Inquiry,"  not 
satisfied,  as  it  would  seem,  with  what  he  had  done  in  his  Review,  he 
went  over  the  same  ground  a  second  and  third  time,  in  remarks  on  our 
replies.  As  he  was  the  assailant,  and  we  the  defendant,  we  were  under 
the  necessitv  of  following  him  in  whatever  course  he  would  take  in 


PREFACE. 


the  discussion.  But  although  the  reader  will  meet  with  too  many 
repetitions,  occasioned  by  the  course  which  Dr.  P.  pursued,  still  he 
may  find  some  new  ideas  elicited  by  his  "Remarks,"  and  which  may, 
in  some  degi'ee,  compensate  him  for  reading  a  second  or  third  time 
what  he  has  already  read.  We  would  further  remark,  that  Dr.  P.  has 
complained  more  than  once,  that  we  have  endeavored  by  "  sarcasm 
and  wit"  to  exhibit  him  to  the  public  eye  in  a  ridiculo  is  point  of  light; 
and  that  our  seventh  number  is  not  consistent  with  a  chrisiian  spirit. 
To  the  first  of  these  charges  we  would  reply,  that  when  a  man  offers  as 
argument  what  is  absurd  and  ridiculous,  we  know  of  no  other  way  of 
answering  it  than  by  shewing  that  it  is  ridiculous  and  absurd.  There 
are,  liowever,  but  a  very  few  instances  where  we  have  resorted  to  that 
justifiable  and  scriptural  weapon  of  defence.    1  Kings,  18  :  27. 

And  as  to  the  second  ground  of  complaint,  the  i-eader  will  see  that 
we  have  offered  him  the  fairest  opportunity  of  relieving  his  character 
from  the  serious  charges  brought  against  him  as  a  writer,  and  if  he 
has  not  availed  himself  of  that  opportunity,  it  is  surely  not  our  default. 

The  reader  will  see  that  the  argument  for  an  Evangelical  Psalmody 
founded  on  scripture  "pi'ecedents,"  is  altogether  new,  as  far  as  we 
have  seen  and  known.  Indeed  the  argument  was  seen  by  ourself  for 
the  first  time  while  studying  the  Book  of  "  the  Revelation,"  some 
years  ago.  He  will  also  see  that  principles  and  practices  of  our  oppo- 
nents, not  noticed  nor  analysed  heretofore,  were  brought  up  in  the  course 
of  the  discussion,  and  that  they  have  a  strong  bearing  and  shed  consid- 
erable light  on  that  side  of  the  question  which  we  have  espoused.  This 
was  brought  about  by  the  wide  range  which  Dr.  P.  took  in  the  discus- 
sion, and,  in  fact,  led  to  the  intrinsic  merits  of  the  question  in  debate. 

We  will  add  only,  that  we  had  not  the  most  distant  idea  of  publish- 
ing in  a  book  what  we  would  write  on  the  subject  of  Psalmody,  when 
Dr.  P.  dragged  us  into  the  controversy.  Had  that  been  the  case,  per- 
haps two  or  three  sentences  would  have  been  omitted,  or  thrown  into  a 
different  form.  But  as  Dr.  P.  had  published  his  "Review"  of  our 
"Inquiry,"  some  of  our  judicious  friends  thought  that  our  reply  and 
defence  should  be  published  also,  and  we  have  complied  with  their 
wish.  And  now  we  say  of  this  little  volume,  what  we  have  said  of  that 
which  pi-eceded  and  gave  rise  to  it,  "We  commit  it  to  the  guidance  of 
the  great  Head  of  the  Church,  for  the  promotion  of  whose  declarative 
glory  it  was  written,  praying  that  he  will  graciously  forgive  whatever  is 
wrong,  or  amiss,  and  guide  the  reader  and  writer  into  all  necessary 
truth." 


%^ 


psalmody: 


NO.  I. 

Question    Stated  —  Misrepresentation  —  Nadab    and 
Abihu  —  Singing  of  Hymns  —  Strange  Fire. 

Mr.  Annan  : 

I  have  lately  seen  in  the  "Missionary  Advocate," 
of  your  city,  two  numbers  of  a  Review  of  my  "Inquiry 
into  the  propriety  of  using  an  evangelical  Psalmody  in 
the  worship  of  God,"  by  Dr.  Pressly  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Church.  When  I  saw  the  first  num- 
ber, I  intended,  if  a  reply  was  deemed  necessary,  to 
wait  until  he  had  furnished  the  whole  promised  series. 
But  as  I  know  not  how  many  are  forthcoming,  and 
there  was  an  interval  of  two  months  between  the  first 
and  second  number,  and  which,  I  am  informed,  is  to 
be  the  case  for  the  time  to  come ;  and  as  my  health 
is  very  uncertain,  and  I  cannot  write  in  very  warm 
weather,  I  have  therefore  come  to  the  conclusion  to 
reply  to  each  number  as  it  may  appear,  if  a  reply  i^ 
deemed  necessary,  and  my  state  of  health  permits. 
And,  indeed,  from  some  things  thrown  out  in  the 
second  number,  a  reply  as  soon  as  possible  is  indispen- 
sably necessary — both  on  my  account  and  on  ac- 
count of  the  cause  which  I  advocate.  For  I  am 
charged  in  that  number  with  holding  doctrines  which 
I  never  beheved,  never  taught,  and  which  I  reject  whh 
my  whole  heart;  but  this  is  nothing  new  in  the  con- 
troversy on  Psalmody. 

It  must  be  obvious  that  I  write  under  great  disad- 


PSALMODY. 


vantage,  as  I  have  not  the  whole  series  before  me, 
and  at  hberty  to  choose  my  own  method  of  arranging 
and  discussing  the  subject,  biU  must  follow  the  erratic 
track  of  my  opponent.  For  the  reasons  assigned,  and 
especially  as  it  may  be  many  months  before  Dr. 
Pressly  has  finished  his  review,  I  request  that  you  will 
publish  my  replies  to  his  first  and  second  numbers,  as 
soon  as  it  may  suit  your  convenience.  And  as  the  sub- 
ject is  of  importance  in  regard  to  the  peace,  unity, 
and  we  believe  the  purity  of  the  church ;  and  as  an  act 
of  common  justice,  it  is  here  respectfully  requested  and 
expected  of  the  editor  of  the  "Missionary  Advocate," 
that  he  will  publish  my  replies,  as  they  may  appear  in 
your  paper,  from  time  to  time.  I  would  have  been 
pleased  to  have  seen  the  "  Review"  in  your  Advo- 
cate, had  that  been  agreeable  to  Dr.  Pressly  and  vour- 
&elf. 

SAMUEL  RALSTON. 


We  fully  agree  with  our  opponent.  Dr.  Pressly, 
that  singing  the  praises  of  God  is  a  required  and  in- 
teresting part  of  divine  worship  ;  and  are  pleased  that 
he  has  divested  the  subject  of  that  extraneous  matter 
with  which  it  is  often  encumbered,  respecting  differ- 
ent versions  of  the  Psalms,  and  reduced  the  discussion 
io  the  simple  question,  whence,  or  frpin  what  part  of 
the  Scriptures,  are  we  to  draw  our  songs  of  praise  unto 
God.  Our  reviewer  informs  us,  that  with  regard  to 
his  own  opinion  and  practice  on  the  subject,  and  he 
adds  of  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  we  should 
confine  ourselves  to  the  Book  of  Psalms,  and  to  them 
exclusively.  Now,  as  it  respects  our  own  opinion  and 
practice,  we  think  that  we  are  privileged  to  use  every 
part  of  the  Old  or  New  Testaments,  that  is  suited  to 
that  part  of  divine  worship. 

Our  opponent,  however,  endeavors  to  impress  it 
1* 


MISREPRESENTATIOX.  7 

on  his  readers,  that  we  are  for  excludlnf^  the  book  of 
Psahiis  from  our  songs  of  joraise,  and  drawing  diem 
wholly  from  the  New  Testament.  This  he  infers  from 
our  using  the  words — "Gospel  Psalmody — evangelical 
Psalmody" — and  from  our  opinion,  that  the  phrase 
"  The  word  of  Christ,"  in  Col.  3:  IG,  means  the  New 
Testament  scriptures  that  were  extant  when  Paul 
wrote  those  words.  But  a  quotation  from  the  Inquiry 
by  himself,  should,  we  think,  have  led  him  to  a  differ- 
ent conclusion.  The  quotation  is  this  :  "  We  think 
we  have  precept  and  precedent  for  doing  so,  and  that 
our  songs  of  praise  are  to  be  drawn  from  the  New- 
Testament  in  an  especial  manner."  Surely  the  last 
words  in  this  quotation  clearly  imply  that  we  are  to 
draw  our  songs  of  praise  from  other  sources  than  from 
the  New  Testament  Scriptures.  But  if  the  preceding 
words  had  not  been  sufficient  to  satisfy  him  on  the 
point,  the  following  sentence,  in  page  206,  might  have 
removed  every  doubt  of  our  views  on  this  subject : — 
"  Then  the  scene  which  John  saw  in  heaven,  or  the 
'  habitation  of  God,  as  recorded  in  the  5th  chapter,  is 
another  proof  that  we  are  to  take  our  songs  of  praise 
'  from  the  New,  as  well  as  from  the  Old  Testament." 
And  that  we  consider  much  of  the  book  of  Psalms  as 
highly  suited  to  the  praises  of  God,  even  in  the  pre- 
sent dispensation  of  grace,  he  might  have  known  from 
the  following  sentence  in  j^age  213  :  "  But  when  we 
say  that  all  that  is  typical  and  local  in  the  Psalms  is 
not  suited  to  Gospel  worship  and  praise,  we  yet 
cheerfully  and  unhesitatingly  say,  that  whatever  is 
devotional  and  preceptive,  is  highly  suited  to  the 
praises  of  God,  and  has  accordingly  been  used  in  all 
ages  of  the  church,  and  we  are  persuaded  will  be 
used  and  relished  to  the  end  of  time." 

As  it  is  certain  that  our  review^er  has  read  our  book, 
the  reader  may  be  ready  to  ask,  how  are  we  to  account 
for  such  a  palpable  misrepresentation.  We  know  not, 
unless  that  he  foresaw  that  he  could  not  manaofe  his 


8  PSALMODY. 

argument  against  us,  but  by  placing  us  in  the  position 
which  he  has  attempted.  But  be  that  as  it  may,  we 
think  we  may  say,  that  such  an  attempt  at  the  outset 
bodes  not  well  for  candor  and  fairness  in  the  remain- 
der of  this  discussion. 

But  our  opponent  asks  us  what  we  mean  by  an 
evangelical  Psalmody,  and  assures  us  "that  the  Asso- 
ciate Reformed  Church  actually  does  not,  and  will 
not  use  any  other."  How  that  is  the  fact  may  be  seen 
hereafter;  but  as  it  regards  "the  way  of  salvation," 
we  mean  by  it  such  a  song  as  the  Heavenly  Host  sung 
after  one  of  them  had  announced  to  the  shepherds, 
"  that  on  that  day,  in  the  city  of  David,  was  born  to 
them,  (and  to  us,)  a  Saviour,  which  is  Christ  the 
Lord."  And  so  sensible  was  the  enraptured  host  of 
the  high  importance  of  the  event,  that  the  burden  of 
their  song  was — "  Glory  to  God  in  the  highest,  and  on 
earth  peace,  good  will  towards  men."  Luke  ii.  9,  11. 
And  we  mean  by  it  such  a  song,  as  to  the  matter  of  it, 
as  John  composed  when  he  was  about  to  pen  the 
Revelation.  "Now  unto  him  that  loved  us,  and  wash- 
ed us  from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood,  and  hath  made 
us  kings  and  priests  unto  God  and  his  Father  ;  to  him 
be  glory  and  dominion  for  ever  and  ever."  And 
when  our  reviewer  will  point  out  to  us  any  Psalm  that 
speaks  of  Christ  as  having  come  into  our  world,  and 
bled  and  died  for  the  sins,  and  risen  again  for  the 
justification  of  his  people,  we  will  receive  and  sing  it 
as  an  evangelical  Psalm.  For  we  have  yet  to  learn 
that  a  promise,  and  the  fulfilment  of  that  promise,  are 
identical  ideas,  however  infallible  the  promiser  may 
be.  Nor  can  we  believe  that  this  day,  and  a  day 
three  or  four  thousand  years  ago,  are  to  us  the  same 
portion  of  time. 

As  to  what  remains  of  the  first  number  of  the  Re- 
view that  deserves  notice,  we  confess  that  we  are  at  a 
loss  to  give  it  an  appropriate  name.  It  may  be  con- 
sidered as  an  argument  for  singing  the  book  of  Psalms 


NADAB    AND    ABIHU.  9 

exclusively,  in  the  worship  of  God,  or  as  an  objection 
against  singing  hymns,  understanding  that  word  ii>  its 
modern  acceptation  or  meaning.  But  whether  an  ar- 
gument or  objection,  if  true,  it  is  the  strongest  of  which 
we  can  form  any  conception.  It  is  appalhng  and  over- 
whelming in  the  highest  degree,  and  calculated  to 
produce  the  most  powerful  impression  on  every  power 
of  the  body  and  of  the  mind,  unless  "the  conscience  is 
seared  with  a  hot  iron."  The  reader  who  may  not 
have  seen  the  "Review,"  may  be  now  ready  to  ask 
w^ith  some  anxiety,  What  is  it  ?  This — that  singers 
of  hymns  axe  exposed  to  the  danger,  and  hable  to  the 
punishment  of  being  consumed  by  fire  sent  by  God 
out  of  heaven,  like  Nadab  and  Abihu  of  old,  who 
were  thus  consumed  for  burning  incense  with  "strange 
fire,"  or  common  fire,  and  not  with  the  sacred  fire 
from  the  altar,  as  is  related  in  the  10th  chapter  of  the 
book  of  Leviticus.  That  our  opponent  considers 
singing  of  hymns  as  this  "  strange  fire,"  is  apparent 
from  his  telling  us  that  when  professing  christians  who 
have  embraced  his  views  on  the  subject  of  Psalmody, 
happen  to  be  where  hymns  are  sung,  "  however  well 
their  hearts  may  be  tuned,  and  however  ardently  they 
may  desire  to  engage  in  the  exercise,  they  are  com- 
pelled to  be  silent,  lest  they  should  be  chargeable 
with  offering  strange  fire  before  the  Lord."  And 
that  hymn-singers  are  liable  to  suffer  the  punishment 
inflicted  on  Nadab  and  Abihu,  is  also  apparent  from 
his  saying:  "And  have  we  not  reason  to  apprehend, 
that  the  disregard  to  divine  authority  in  the  worship 
of  God,  now  subject  the  guilty  to  the  displeasure  of 
heaven  as'  certainly  as  it  did  the  presumptuous  sons 
of  Aaron."  And  then  he  confirms  the  whole,  as 
he  supposes,  by  that  passage  from  Deut.  iv.  24,  "The 
Lord  thy  God  is  a  consuming  fire,  even  a  jealous 
God." 

Mr.  Reed  indeed  says,  that  the  fifth  and  sixth  vials 
of  the  wTath  of  God,  mentioned  in  the  sixteenth  chap- 


10  PSALMODY. 

ter  of  the  Revelation,  will  be  poured  out  on  those 
churches  which  introduced  "human  inventions"  into 
the  worship  of  God,  and  of  which  singing  of  hymns  is 
one  ;  and  here  our  reviewer  intimates  more  than  once, 
that  hymn-singers  are  liable  to  be  devoured  by  fire  sent 
down  from  heaven  for  that  purpose.  This  is  not  in- 
deed a  new  argument,  for  we  have  seen  it  in  other 
writings  on  his  side  of  the  question,  but  we  have  never 
before  seen  it  so  particularly  pointed  and  applied.  But 
to  have  its  designed  effect  there  is  a  little  proof  want- 
ing, and  which  it  behooves  our  opponent  to  supply. 

I.  It  should  be  clearly  shewn,  that  the  "  strange 
fire  "  ofi'ered  by  the  unhappy  sons  of  Aaron  was  sym- 
bolical of  hymn-singing. 

II.  As  it  is  an  historical  fact  that  hymns  were  sung 
in  the  christian  church  from  near  the  age  of  the  apos- 
tles to  the  present  day,  and  as  Jehovah  is  no  less  jea- 
lous of  his  glory  now  than  he  was  in  the  days  of 
Nadab  and  Abihu,  then  our  opponent  is  requested  to 
tell  us  how  many  assemblies  or  congregations  have 
been  consumed  by  fire  sent  down  from  heaven,  because 
they  were  singing  hymns  or  spiritual  songs.  For  it  is 
not  to  be  supposed  that  in  the  course  of  sixteen  or  sev- 
enteen centuries  there  would  not  be  some  signal  dis- 
plays of  divine  vengeance  against  that  heaven-daring 
sin,  as  it  seems  to  be  in  his  view.  A  number,  or  even 
a  few  well  attested  facts  or  mstances  of  such  awful  and 
appalling  burnings  would  have  a  salutary  effect  on  a 
great  portion  of  the  christian  world,  and  would,  more- 
over, settle  the  question  about  Psalmody  at  once. 
When  this  is  produced,  we  will  notice  it  as  it  may 
deserve  ;  until  which  time  we  will  leave  the  argument 
where  we  found  it,  in  "the  Missionary  Advocate  of 
March,  1842,"  over  the  signature  of  John  T.  Pressly. 

But  it  may  be,  that  he  will  say  that  the  case  of  Nadab 
and  Abihu' s  death  was  designed  rather  as  an  illustra- 
tion than  an  argument.  Well,  whether  it  was  designed, 
as  an  argument,  objection,  or  illustration,  one  thing  is 


STRANGE    FIRE.  11 

certain,  that  it  was  designed  to  have  an  effect  in  this 
discussion  ;  and  we  have  no  doubt  but  that  a  powerful, 
and  perhaps  proselyting  effect  was  expected  from  it ; 
if  not,  why  was  it  introduced  at  all.  Whatever  may 
have  been  our  expectations  from  Mr.  Reed,  we  con- 
fess that  we  were  not  prepared  to  see  such  an  argu- 
ment, objection  or  illustration  from  the  pen  of  Dr. 
Pressly.  And  it  may  be,  that  in  the  course  of  the 
next  number  something  resulting  from  the  system  of 
Psalmody  for  which  he  contends,  may  appear,  that 
looks  as  much  like  "the  strange  fire"  of  Nadab  and 
Abihu,  as  singing  a  modern  hymn  ;  but  we  do  not  say 
that  it  was  symbolized  by  that  fire,  for  we  are  not  so 
deeply  skilled  in  symbolical  lore  as  our  reviewer  seems 
to  be. 

In  closing  this  number  we  cannot  help  saying,  that 
it  is  truly  pitiable  to  hear  sinful  mortals  trying  to 
prove  from  obscure  symbols,  that  other  sinful  mortals 
are  liable  to  be  consumed  by  Jehovah's  special  ire, 
because  they  differ  from  them  in  things  not  essential 
to  the  salvation  of  the  soul.  Is  it  not  saying,  "stand 
by  thyself,  come  not  near  to  we,  for  I  am  holier  than 
thou."  And  is  it  not  disregarding  those  wholesome 
sayings,  "  vengeance  is  mine,  and  I  will  repay,  saith 
the  Lord,"  and  "judge  not,  that  ye  be  not  judged." 
It  cannot  relieve  the  case  to  say,  such  is  our  opinion 
of  the  above  passage ;  for  opinions  fraught  with  such 
awful  and  appalling  consequences,  ought  to  be  founded 
on  premises  as  clear  as  noonday;  but,  that  the  "strange 
fire  "  alluded  to  symbolized  hymn-singing  is  not  so 
clear.  And  until  this  is  proved,  we  hope  for  the 
honor  of  religion,  that  it  will  never  be  so  applied  again. 
In  our  next  number  we  will  examine  our  opponent's 
strictures  on  the  phrases  "  human  inventions "  and 
"human  composure,"  introduced  into  our  "Inquiry." 


12  PSALMODY. 

NO.  11. 

Human  Inventions^  and  Human  Composure. 

In  the  second  number  of  his  review,  our  opponent, 
Dr.  Pressly,  has  confined  himself  to  remarks  on  the 
words  "human  inventions,"  and  "human  composure," 
which  are  so  much  used  by  writers  on  his  side  of  the 
question,  and  which  we  have  noticed  in  the  first  chap- 
ter of  our  "  Inquiry."  We  presume  that  the  greatest 
part  of  our  readers  know,  that  the  writers  alluded  to, 
are  in  the  habit  of  stigmatising  what  are  usually  called 
hymns,  as  "  human  inventions  ;"  we  therefore  deemed 
it  necessary  to  inquire  into  the  real  and  proper  meaning 
of  these  hackneyed  words,  both  for  the  purpose  of 
vindicating  an  evangelical  Psalmody  from  an  unfound- 
ed charge,  and  to  undeceive  those  who  may  have  been 
deceived  by  the  mere  sound  of  a  word.  We  accord- 
ingly observed,  that  "  human  inventions"  have  refer- 
ence to  discoveries,  or  inventions  in  the  useful  arts  ; 
and  which  is  admitted  by  our  opponent.  "  By  hu- 
man inventions,"  he  says,  "  I  suppose  any  person 
acquainted  with  the  English  language,  will  under- 
stand such  things  as  have  been  found  out  by  the  wis- 
dom of  man."  Now  as  hymns  and  spiritual  songs 
have  a  confessed  reference  to  the  plan  of  redemption 
through  Christ,  it  was  observed  "  that  as  the  invention 
and  apjilication  of  that  glorious  and  gracious  plan 
was  altogether  divine,  then  nothing  can  '  be  more 
preposterous,  than  to  call  hymns  which  celebrate  the 
wisdom,  love,  mercy  and  grace  of  that  plan,  *  human 
inventions  ;'  and  that  nothing  can  be  more  uncandid 
and  unjust,  than  to  charge  those  who  sing  such  hymns 
with  using  human  inventions  in  the  worship  of  God." 
This  he  also  admits  in  the  following  quotation  :  "And 
now  to  apply  these  remarks  to  the  subject  under  dis- 


HUMAN-    INVENTIONS.  13 

cussion,  I  would  say,  that  if  God  has  appointed  the 
use  of  evangeHcal  hymns  composed  by  uninspired 
men,  then  it  is  manifestly  improper  to  represent  the 
use  of  them  as  a  '  human  invention  ;'  "  but  this  he 
denies,  and  tells  us  more  than  once,  "  that  we  have 
not  proved  it."  We  think,  however,  that  we  have 
done  what  is  equivalent,  in  the  second  chapter  of  our 
Inquiry.  Our  opponent  contends  that  the  book  of 
Psalms,  and  nothing  else,  was  designed  to  be  a  system 
of  Psalmody  for  the  church  to  the  end  of  time  ;  but 
in  that  chapter  we  have  shewn  that  there  are,  in  the 
book  of  the  Revelation,  three  songs  of  praise  to  God, 
two  of  which,  in  our  opinion,  have  been  sung  in  the 
church,  and  the  other  will  be  sung,  and  none  of  which 
are  in  the  book  of  Psalms.  And  should  that  argu- 
ment be  overturned,  or  not  deemed  sufficiently  clear 
and  strong,  we  will  give  him  apostolic  recommenda- 
tion and  injunction  for  an  evangelical  Psalmody.  And 
here,  while  on  the  subject  of  proof,  we  cannot  but 
observe,  that  we  have  never  read  any  piece  of  writing 
so  lacking  in  scriptural  proof,  as  the  first  and  second 
numbers  of  the  review.  He  assumes  it  as  an  admit- 
ted truth  and  fact,  that  the  book  of  Psalms  was  de- 
signed as  an  exclusive  system  of  Psalmody  for  the 
church,  and  argues  from  it  accordingly ;  whereas  this 
is  the  point  at  issue.  One  clear  scriptural  proof — 
one,  "Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  in  support  of  his  as- 
sumptions, would  at  the  outset  have  settled  the  point 
at  once,  and  put  an  end  to  the  controversy ;  but  he 
has  not  given  us  a  single  iota  of  scriptural  proof.  He 
has  indeed  given  us  a  number  of  illustrations,  but 
illustrations  are  not  proofs  ;  and  here  we  would  ask, 
by  the  way,  what  analogy  there  is  between  a  modern 
hymn,  and  setting  up  "images  and  pictures"  in  the 
church,  or  between  sacrificing  "a  pig  instead  of  a  kid." 
So  much  for  "  human  inventions  in  the  worship  of 
God;"  and  of  which  it  is  to  be  hoped  we  shall  hear 
nothing  more,  at  least  from  Dr.  Pressly. 
2 


14  PSALMODY. 

As  to  the  other  hackneyed  words  m  this  contro- 
versy— "human  composure,"  we  have  said  in  our  In- 
quiry— "  human  composure,"  properly  speaking,  is 
something  in  prose  or  in  verse,  composed  by  man,  the 
subject  matter  of  which  is,  human  views,  wishes,  con- 
cerns, or  interests.  And  for  the  reasons  abeady  as- 
signed, it  is  not  proper  to  call  a  poem,  the  ground 
and  substance  of  which  is  some  doctrine,  precept  and 
promise,  &c.  in  the  word  of  God,  "  a  human  com- 
posure," as  is  often  the  case  with  many.  To  this 
our  opponent  objects,  by  saying,  "that  if  the  latter 
part  of  the  definition  were  cut  off,  the  remaining  part 
would  express  the  truth  plainly  and  simply.  And  as 
we  have  also  said,  that  it  is  not  the  circumstance  of 
a  poem  being  arranged  and  written  by  man,  that  makes 
it  a  human  or  divine  composition,  but  what  it  con- 
tains ;  he  "  asks  the  honest  reader,  if  this  is  not 
equivalent  to  the  declaration  that  it  is  not  the  cir- 
cumstance of  a  poem  being  composed  by  man  which 
makes  it  man's  composition."  Now,  we  cannot  help 
saying  here,  that  there  is  not  only  a  quibble  but  an 
unhandsome  change  of  the  state  of  the  question  in 
the  above  statement  and  remarks.  Cur  opponent  well 
knew  that  our  object  was  to  shew  the  unfairness  and 
impropriety  of  applying  the  words  "human  compo- 
sure" to  a  poem  on  divine  subjects,  and  that  too  for 
the  purpose  of  exhibiting  it  in  an  unfavorable  and 
ridiculous  point  of  light,  as  is  not  unusual  with  some 
writers  on  his  side  of  the  question.  And  we  are  not 
afraid  to  repeat,  and  submit  to  the  decision  of  a  dis- 
cerning public,  if  it  is  not  the  subject-matter  of  any 
composition  that  gives  it  its  "distinctive  character." 
Nor  are  we  afraid  to  say,  that  a  poem  on  some  impor- 
tant doctrine,  precept,  or  promise  in  the  word  of  God, 
is  divine  ;  not  indeed  in  the  sense  in  which  the  scrip- 
tures are  so,  but  in  contradistinction  to  a  poem  on  hu- 
man views,  concerns,  or  interssts.  This,  our  oppo- 
nent thinks  "  such  an  abuse  of  language  as  elevates  the 


HUMAN    COMPOSURE.  15 

compositions  of  men  to  a  level  with  the  woril  of  God," 
and  against  it  he  "enters  his  solemn  protest."  But 
how  this  follows,  we  cannot  possibly  see.  It  is  not 
s;iid,  nor  pretended,  that  such  a  poem  is  of  itself  a 
divine  revelation, — ^^Ahs'it  hlasiihcmia,^^  let  it  be  re- 
jected, but  only  that  it  contains  a  portion  of  divine 
revelation.  And  where,  we  would  ask,  is  the  danger 
or  impropriety  of  saying  that  a  poem  of  this  character 
is  divine,  in  contradistinction  to  a  poem  based  on 
human  affairs  and  concerns  only.  And  is  there  any 
thing  more  common  than  to  say  that  such  a  poem  or 
book  is  on  a  divine  subject,  and  of  another  that  it  is 
on  a  human  subject,  as  politics,  history,  philosophy, 
&c  ■?  And  to  this  we  would  add,  that  if  it  was  right 
in  the  apostle  Peter  to  say  that  true  believers  in  Christ 
are  "partakers  of  the  divine  nature,"  although  at  the 
same  time,  there  remaineth  in  them  much  moral  blind- 
ness and  depravity,  2  Ep.  1:4;  was  it  wrong  in  us 
to  say  that  a  song  containing  some  of  the  precious  and 
saving  truths  of  the  gospel  is  a  divine  song,  although 
it  may  partake  of  some  human  weakness  ? 

Indeed,  we  cannot  but  suspect  that  there  was  a 
disposition  to  cavil  and  find  fault,  wherever  a  cavil 
could  possibly  be  raised,  when  the  above  strictures 
were  written.  Our  suspicion  is  increased  by  what  he 
says  in  the  paragraph  where  he  enters  his  "protest," 
that  I  did  not  choose  to  appear  before  the  pubHc  an 
advocate  for  human  composure  in  the  worship  of  God  ; 
and  to  extricate  himself  from  the  difficulty,  he  has 
invented  a  convenient  definition  for  the  phrase  "  hu- 
man composure."  Now  he  does  not,  could  not  know, 
that  we  felt  any  difficulty  in  the  case  ;  and  have  we 
not  advocated,  and  are  w^e  not  now  advocating  what 
he  and  others  call  "  human  composure  in  the  worshiji 
of  God?"  These  words  when  predicated  of  hymns, 
and  introduced  into  the  controversy  on  Psalmody, 
are  so  insidiously  stated,  and  spoken  of  so  sneeringly 
and  contemptuously,  as  to  convey  to  the  indiscrimina- 


16  PSALMODY. 

ting  hearer  or  reader  the  idea  that  they  originated 
from  the  composers,  and  have  nothing  scriptural  or 
divine  in  them  or  about  them,  and  this  has  made 
hundreds  of  proselytes.  Our  object  in  the  Inquiry 
was  to  rescue  the  phrase  from  the  unnatural  and  ille- 
gitimate meaning  affixed  to  it,  and  restoi^  it  to  its 
natural  and  obvious  meaning ;  but  little  did  we  expect 
that  for  this  our  words  would  have  been  distorted  from 
their  obvious  designed  meaning,  and  doctrines  im- 
puted to  us  which  our  soul  abhors. 

We  have  also  said,  '*  that  if  it  is  unlawful  to  use  in 
the  worship  of  God,  a  hymn  or  song  written  by  man, 
provided  it  is  founded  upon  and  agreeable  to  his  word, 
then  Mr.  Reid's  lectures,  sermons  and  prayers  are  all 
unlawful ;  for  although  they  may  be  agreeable  to,  and 
founded  on  the  word  of  God,  yet  the  language  and 
arrangement  are  his  ow^n.  But  not  only  in  this  case, 
but  every  translation  of  the  scriptures,  is  "  human 
composure,"  and  consequently  it  is  unlawful  to  use 
or  read  them  in  the  public  worship  of  God.  Our  op- 
ponent is  ^'startled"  at  these  propositions,  and  "in 
the  name  of  the  Protestant  Church  of  Christ,  he  pro- 
tests against  the  principle  which  maintains  that  the 
one  [a  hymn  or  song,]  can  with  any  propriety  be 
elevated  to  a  level  with  the  other,  [the  word  of  God."] 

We  did  not  know  before  we  saw  this,  "that  the 
Protestant  Church  of  Christ "  had  committed  its  or- 
thodoxy and  honor  to  our  opponent's  keeping.  If 
so,  it  may  justify  this  extraordinary  protest  to  some 
extent ;  if  not  so,  then  it  must,  and  wdll  be  regarded  as 
a  mere  empty  flash,  either  of  assumed  warmth,  or 
untempered  zeal,  and  which  cannot  do  any  honor 
either  to  himself  or  the  important  station  which  he 
holds  in  the  Associate  Rejformed  Church.  In  this 
point  of  light  we  are  persuaded  it  will  be  viewed  by 
every  discerning  reader,  and  more  especially  when 
it  is  considered  that  its  object  was  to  call  in  question 
his  opponent's  soundness  in  the  faith,  and  to  exhibit 


HUMAN    COMPOSURE.  17 

him  to  the  pubhc  in  an  unfavorable  point  of  view,  and 
prejudice  the  pubhc  mind  against  anytliing  he  might 
say.  Besides,  it  was  akogether  uncalled  for;  for  h 
so  happens  that  the  obnoxious  propositions  are  not 
expressive  of  our  own  views  on  theological  subjects, 
but  inferences  deducible  from  premises  furnished  by 
himself  and  other  writers  on  his  side  of  the  question, 
and  according  to  his  own  logic,  "  they  may  be  logi- 
cally true  in  one  case,  while  they  in  the  other  do  not 
hold."  For,  if  the  circumstance  of  a  hymn  or  song 
containing  scriptural  doctrine  and  ideas,  being  com- 
posed by  uninspired  men,  divests  it  of  its  scriptural 
ideas,  and  reduces  it  to  the  level  of  a  mere  human 
composure  on  human  affairs,  as  some  seem  to  think, 
and  more  than  insinuate,  then,  both  inferences  are 
logically  sound  and  true.  But  if  the  circumstance 
does  not  strip  it  of  its  scriptural  character,  then,  the 
inferences  do  not  follow.  And  for  any  thing  we  see 
to  the  contrary,  such  a  hymn  or  song  may  be  as 
acceptable  to  God,  and  profitable  to  the  singer,  as 
scriptural  praying  and  preaching.  We  are  aw' are  that 
our  opponent  may  say,  that  he  does  not  object  to  a 
scriptural  hymn  or  song,  solely  on  the  ground  that  it 
is  *'  human  composure,"  but  that  it  is  not  a  part  of  the 
word  of  God,  as  is  the  book  of  Psalms.  But  this 
point  cannot  be  discussed  now,  nor  until  he  produces 
what  he  supposes  to  be  a  divine  command  to  sing  the 
book  of  Psalms  in  the  worship  of  God,  and  nothing 
else.  In  a  word,  on  this  point,  according  to  our  views, 
the  scriptures  are  the  rule,  and  the  only  rule  of  faith 
and  practice,  and  all  parts  of  divine  worship,  preaching, 
praying  and  singing,  ought  to  be  conformed  to  it ;  but 
the  scriptures  are  one  thing,  and  scriptural  preaching, 
praying  and  singing  are  another.  So  much  for  ''  hu- 
man composure  in  the  worship  of  God." 

Our  opponent  closes  his  review  of  the  first  chapter 
of  our  Inquiry,  by  endeavoring  to  extricate  himself 
from,  another  consequence   deducible  from  his  doc- 
2* 


IS  PSALMODY. 

trine  and  practice  on  Psalmody.  We  have  asked  in 
our  Inquiry,  if  Mr.  Reid  explains  the  Psalms  to  his 
congregation  before  they  begin  to  sing  them,  as  has 
been  the  case  in  the  Associate  Reformed  Church,  and 
where  he  meets  vv'ith  a  typical  expression,  tells  them, 
that  ''  to  sing  with  the  understanding,"  they  must  not 
use  that  word  in  its  literal  but  spiritual  meaning ;  do 
not  he  and  they  virtually  use  what  is  called  "  human 
composure"  in  the  worship  of  God?  To  this  our 
opponent,  as  the  substitute  of  Mr.  Reid,  "  answers 
emphatically  and  unequivocally,  no  !  "  and  expresses 
"astonishment"  at  the  obtuseness  of  our  intellect,  in 
seeing  any  difficulty  in  the  case.  And  what  now  is 
his  own  account  of  the  design  of  those  explanations  ? 
"  It  is,"  he  says,  "  a  perfectly  plain  and  simple  case, 
that  the  congregations  of  worshippers  do  not  sing  the 
explanation  of  the  Psalm  which  they  may  have  heard," 
but  the  explanations  are  given  "  for  the  purpose  of 
stirring  up  devotional  feelings,  and  of  preparing  the 
worshippers  to  engage  in  praising  God  with  suitable 
affections."  Now,  as  the  word  explanation  signifies 
to  render  that  more  clear  and  intelligible,  which  was 
previously  somewhat  dark  and  obscure,  one  would 
think,  that  what  is  called  exhortation,  would  be  better 
calculated  to  stir  up  devotional  feelings.  And  again, 
he  says,  "  after  a  Psalm  has  been  explained  for  the 
edification  of  the  worshipj^ers,  they  use  the  explanation 
as  a  help  to  assist  them  in  singing  with  the  understand- 
ing. But  they  do  not  sing  the  explanation  which  is 
given  by  man.  They  sing  literally  and  truly  a  Psalm 
or  song  which  God  has  provided  for  his  church.  And 
in  doing  this,  they  neither  virtually,  nor  in  any  other 
sense,  sing  '  human  composure.'  " 

Now  whatever  astonishment  it  may  excite  in  our 
opponent,  we  must  confess,  that  so  dull  are  our  appre- 
hensions and  perceptions  that  we  cannot  see  in  "  this 
perfectly  plain  and  simple  case,"  as  he  says  it  is,  any 
thing  but  glaring  inconsistencies,  and  palpable  contra- 


HUMAN    COMPOSURE.  19 

dictions,  and  we  do  not  see  how  it  could  be  oth- 
erwise. He  tells  us,  "  that  the  congregation  of  wor- 
shippers do  not  sing  the  explanation  of  the  Psalm 
which  they  may  have  heard,"  and  then"  that  they  do 
not  sing  the  explanation  given  by  man,  and  that  "  they 
use  the  explanation  as  a  help  to  assist  them  in  singing 
with  the  understanding,"  We  would  be  glad  to  know 
how  his  hearers  understand  it ;  and  if  he  tells  them  as 
he  ought  to  do  in  all  honesty,  to  sing  the  Psalm  liter- 
ally and  truly  as  it  is  in  their  Psalm  book,  without  any 
.regard  to  his  explanations. 

There  is  an  old  Latin  maxim,  '-'- excmjila  cloccnt,'''' 
or  examples  teach — and  we  will  now  test  our  oppo- 
nent's theory,  and  as  he  tells  us,  his  hearers  practice, 
by  a  portion  of  the  sixty-sixth  Psalm,  and  which  we 
ijitroduced  into  our  Inquiry,  but  which  he  has  passed 
over  without  the  least  notice,  for  what  reason  is  best 
known  to  himself.  The  portion  alluded  to  is — "  I 
will  go  into  thy  house  with  burnt  offerings  ;  I  will  pay 
thee  my  vows — I  wdll  offer  unto  thee  burnt  sacrifices 
of  fatlings,  with  the  incense  of  rams  ;  I  will  offer  bul- 
locks with  goats."  Now,  when  he  is  explaining 
these  words,  he  will  at  least  tell  them,  that  all  the  Jew- 
ish sacrifices  were  typical  of,  and  had  reference  to  the 
"  one  sacrifice  for  sins,"  which  Christ  offered  up  of 
himself,  for  removing  the  guilt  of  his  people  ;  but  in 
accordance  with  the  above  statement  and  theory,  they 
must  not  sing  that  explanation,  for  that  would  be  sing- 
ing oral  ''  human  composure," — but  banish  it  from 
their  minds.  And  should  any  of  them  ask  him  :  how 
are  we  to  sing  those  and  similar  words  in  our  Psalm 
book — we  don't  mean,  nor  design  "to  offer  burnt 
offerings  of  fathngs  ;"  and  although  it  was  right  in  the 
Jews  to  say  and  do  so,  yet  you  yourself  have  often  told 
us  that  these  with  every  other  Jewish  rite  expired  with 
the  death  of  Christ.  The  only  answer  that  can  be 
given,  in  consistence  with  his  theory  and  statement  is, 
that  they  are  to  sing  them  "  literally  "  as  one  of  the 


20  PSALMODY. 

songs  of  Zion,  without  attaching  any  meaning  to  them 
at  all. 

And  we  would  ask  here  by  the  way,  if  singing  a 
Psalm  in  this  manner,  is  not  as  much  like  the  "  strange 
fire  "  which  Nadab  and  Abihu  offered  of  old,  as  the 
singing  of  a  modern  hymn.  We  have  thought  that 
every  divine  ordinance,  under  every  dispensation,  was 
designed  and  calculated  to  produce  an  enlightening 
influence  in  the  understanding,  and  a  purifying  effect 
in  the  heart;  but  according  to  our  ojDponent's  own 
statements,  here  is  a  divine  ordinance,  that  in  several, 
cases,  cannot  in  the  nature  of  things,  produce'  any 
saving  effect  whatever.  But  we  cannot  think  that  the 
intelligent  and  serious  part  of  his  hearers  believe  on 
this  subject  as  he  does,  or  that  they  practice  on  his 
principles.  We  think  and  trust,  that  when  called  upon 
to  sing  a  Psalm  that  speaks  of  the  Jewish  sacrifices, 
they  try  to  have  the  eye  of  the  mind,  and  the  eye  of 
faith  directed  to  that  blood  which  they  typified,  and 
which  when  received  by  faith,  "cleanseth  from  all 
sin."  The  truth  is,  and  no  sophistry,  however  ingen- 
geniously  framed,  can  conceal  it,  that  while  Presbyte- 
rians sing  what  are  called  Watt's  Psalms,  and  are  much 
blamed  for  it  by  some,  our  opponent's  hearers  sing 
Pressly's  Psalms  or  explanation  of  the  Psalms,  and 
Mr.  Reid's  hearers  sing  Reid's  Psalms.  As  they 
are  both  explanations,  they  both  come  under  the  cate- 
gory of  what  he  calls  "  human  composure  ;"  with  this 
difference,  that  theirs  is  mental,  while  that  of  the 
Presbyterian  church  is  written  ;  and  which  of  them  is 
safest,  as  it  regards  orthodoxy  and  the  true  meaning 
of  the  Psalm,  the  reader  may  judge. 


HISTORY.  21 


NO.  III. 


History  of  Psalmody  under  both  the  Jewish  and  Chris- 
tian Church, 

As  a  terrifying  and  deleterious  atmosphere  has  been 
thrown  around  the  subject  of  Psahnody,  by  our  oppo- 
nent and  others,  by  the  words,  "  human  inventions — 
human  composure,  and  the  compositions  of  uninspired 
men;"  we  have  thought  that  a  short  history  of  Psal- 
mody might  be  of  use,  both  for  the  purpose  of  dissi- 
pating that  atmosphere,  and  that  the  reader  might  have 
the  subject  more  fully  and  fairly  before  him,  than  we 
have  yet  seen  it  presented  as  far  as  w^e  remember. 

For  this  purpose  we  w^ould  observe,  that  it  is  evident 
from  sacred  history,  that  the  church  of  God  was  in  the 
habit  from  the  earliest  ages,  of  singing  songs  of  praise 
to  him,  and  which  have  not  formed  any  part  of  the  book 
of  Psalms ;  and  the  fair  presumption  is,  that  thay  were 
the  productions  of  pious  but  uninspired  men.  Thus 
we  are  told  in  Gen.  4 :  2(S,  "  that  to  Seth  there  was 
born  a  son,  and  he  called  his  name  Enos,  then  men 
began  to  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord."  The  words, 
"  to  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord,"  are  indeed  used  to 
denote  prayer  ;  but  they  are  also  used  to  denote  praise, 
or  praise  connected  with  prayer.  Psalms  105  :  1,  2. 
"  O  give  thanks  unto  the  Lord,  call  upon  his  name; 
make  known  his  deeds  among  the  people.  Sing  unto 
him,  sing  Psalms  unto  him,  talk  ye  of  all  his  won- 
drous works."  The  song  of  Moses,  and  of  the  rescued 
Israelites  at  the  Red  Sea,  was  an  inspired  song,  and 
comes  not  within  the  sphere  of  Inquiry  at  present,  but 
we  would  remark,  that  although  referred  to  in  the  book 
of  Psalms,  it  is  not  in  that  collection  as  recorded  in  the 
fifteenth  chapter  of  Exodus  ;  perhaps  our  opponent  can 
tell  tlie  reason,  for  we  cannot.     '*  The  feast  of  the 


22  PSALMODY. 

Lord,"  mentioned  in  the  twenty-first  chapter  of  Judges, 
seems  to  have  been  celebrated  with  rehgious  songs, 
which  we  are  told  accompanied  the  dance.  This  w^ill 
be  evident  from  the  next  case  which  w^e  shall  select — 
the  relio-ious  sonars  suns;  on  occasion  of  David's  victory 
over  Goliah,  and  which  were  uninspired,  unless  all 
tlie  women  of  Israel  were  inspired;  but  founded  on  a 
a  deep  sense  of  Jehovah's  protection  of  his  church  in 
the  people  of  Israel,  against  those  wdio  were  constantly 
seeking  her  destruction.  1  Sam.  IS  :  26 — "  The  wo- 
men came  out  of  all  the  cities  of  Israel,  with  singing 
and  dancing,  to  meet  king  Saul  with  joy  and  instru- 
ments of  music  ;"  and  let  it  be  remembered,  that  dan- 
cing accompanied  with  the  song  was  a  religious  rite  in 
those  days.  From  this  period,  inspired  songs  were 
composed  by  David,  Asaph,  and  others,  and  wdiich 
'now  constitute  tlie  book  of  Psalms,  and  are  a  part  of 
divine  revelation;  but  who  collected  and  arranged 
them  in  their  present  form,  we  do  not  positively  know. 
These,  also,  come  not  within  the  sphere  of  our  present 
Inqulcy  ;  but  we  would  remark,  that  according  to  our 
view  of  the  subject,  they  were  designed  and  given  for 
dlfi:erent  good  and  gracious  purposes.  They  were 
given  as  specimens,  and  practical  examples  of  all  that 
is  deep  and  solemn,  or  highly  Impassioned  in  devotion; 
and  of  all  that  is  truly  sublime  in  sacred  poesy.  They 
were  also  given  as  an  excellent  fund  whence  the  church 
might.  In  future  ages,  draw  much  of  the  material  of 
her  songs  of  praise.  And  w^e  cannot  but  think,  that 
they  were  further  designed  as  a  model  or  pattern  for 
framing  those  songs  :  as  the  Lord's  prayer  was  given 
as  a  pattern  for  prayer  and  supplication.  And  to  this 
we  would  add,  that  a  number  of  them  are  so  construct- 
ed, and  expressed,  as  to  shew  evidently,  that  those 
parts  of  them,  at  least,  were  designed  as  a  system  of 
Psalmody  for  the  Jewish  dispensation  only  ;  while  all 
that  is  doctrinal,  preceptive,  or  expressive  of  the  experi- 
ence, or  of  tli€  joys  or  sorrovrs  of  true  believers  in 


HISTORY.  23 

Christ,  are  highly  suited  to  the  Psahiiody  of  the  church 
to  the  end  of  time. 

As  it  respects  the  present  dispensation,  Mr.  Baird, 
in  the  fourth  chapter  of  his  "  Inquiry,"  has  adduced 
the  testimony  of  Ignatius,  the  friend  of  the  apostles  ; 
of  Caius,  a  presbyter  of  Rome;  of  Clemens  Alexan- 
drinus,  and  Pliny's  letter  to  the  emperor  Trajan,  that 
hymns  of  human  composition  were  sung  in  the  chris- 
tian congregations  in  the  second  century  : — of  Origen, 
Tertulhan,  Nepos,  Prudentius,  and  the  facts  connected 
with  Paul  of  Samosata,  that  this  was  the  case  in  the 
third ; — and  of  Augustine,  Ambrose,  Flavian,  and 
Chrysostom,  that  this  was  the  case  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury. IMr.  Baird  has  also  shewn  in  the  fifth  chapter  of 
his  book,  that  the  Lollards  in  the  eleventh,  and  the 
Waldenses  in  the  fourteenth  century,  both  contenders 
for  the  truth  in  the  worst  ages  of  Popery,  were  singers 
of  hymns  composed  by  uninspired  men.  And  that  in 
the  same  century,  John  Huss,  and  Jerome  of  Prague, 
sung  them  when  tied  to  the  stake,  and  consuming  in 
the  flames.  That  Luther  composed  hymns  for  public 
worship,  some  of  which  are  sung  in  the  Lutheran 
churches  iintil  this  day.  And  to  this  he  adds,  "that 
this  subject  came  before  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Scottish  church,  in  1647,  164S,  16S6,  and  the  Asso- 
ciate, (Burgher)  Synod  in  1747  ;  and  that  these  bodies 
appear  to  have  admitted  the  lawfulness  of. using  in 
Psalmody  any  scripture  song."  And  such  is  the  array 
of  testimony  on  this  point  produced  by  Mr.  Baird,  that 
we  think  there  is  no  person  who  has  read,  or  will  read 
his  book,  but  must  be  satisfied  that  the  christian  church 
has  been  in  the  habit  from  near  the  anostolic  aire  to  the 
present  time,  of  singing  hymns  composed  by  uninspired 
men. 

But  although  it  is  evident  from  sacred  and  ecclesi- 
astical history,  that  the  church  in  all  her  dispensations 
possessed,  and  used  in  the  worship  of  God,  songs 
composed  by  persons  not  inspired,  yet  it  should  be 


24  PSALMODY. 

kept  in  mind,  that  all  these  songs  were  founded,  or 
thought  to  be  founded,  on  a  divine  revelation  of  one 
kind  or  other ;  nor  are  we  to  suppose,  that  if  not  thus 
founded,  they  would,  or  could  be  acceptable  to  Him, 
*'  who  will  not  give  his  glory  to  another,  nor  his  praise 
to  graven  images."  In  the  patriarchal  age  they  were 
founded  on  some  revelation  given  to  some  of  the 
patriarchs  by  an  audible  voice  from  heaven,  or  in 
dreams,  or  in  visions  of  the  night,  and  handed  down  by 
them  to  their  posterity.  These  revelations  had  refer- 
ence to  the  character  and  perfections  of  Jehovah  as  the 
only  true  God,  the  only  true  object  of  all  feligious 
worship,  and  of  the  obedience  due  to  him  from  man  ;" 
"for  the  Lord,"  said  Moses,  "is  my  strength  and  my 
song."  From  the  time  of  Abraham  to  Christ,  Jeho- 
vah was  pleased  to  give  farther  revelations  of  his  char- 
acter and  will,  not  only  by  voices,  dreams,  and  visions, 
but  by  a  plenary  inspiration  to  the  prophets,  which  they 
committed  to  writing,  and  of  whom  Moses  was  the  first. 
And  as  has  been  seen,  songs  in  honor  of  Jehovah, 
and  celebrating  his  goodness  and  mercy,  and  grace  to 
his  people,  but  not  composed  by  inspired  men,  but 
founded  on  those  revelations,  were  not  unfrequent  in 
the  church :  and  one  would  think,  that  som.e  of  the 
1005  songs  of  Solomon,  one  of  which  only  formed  a 
part  of  written  revelation,  were  of  this  number.  After 
Christ  came  into  the  world,  God  was  pleased  to  give 
an  additional  revelation  of  his  character  and  will  in  the 
New  Testament  scriptures ;  and  we  have  also  seen, 
that  songs  composed  by  uninspired  men,  but  founded 
on  those  scriptures,  celebrating  "  the  glory  of  his 
grace  in  Christ,"  have  been  sung  in  the  christian 
church  in  her  purest  times  from  near  the  age  of 
the  apostles,  to  the  present  day.  These,  we  repeat 
it,  were  not  human  but  divine  songs,  in  the  sense 
in  which  we  have  explained  the  words ;  and  in  thou- 
sands of  instances,  have  been  blessed  to  the  edifica- 
tion and  comfort  of  the  people  of  God,  as  they  them- 


HISTORY.  2-5 

selves  have  confessed.  For  as  already  observed,  we 
have  no  reason  to  believe  that  God  will  bless  any 
worship,  preaching,  praying,  and  singing,  that  is  not 
founded  on  his  own  word,  the  only  rule  of  faith  and 
practice:  "to  the  law  and  to  the  testimony;  if  they 
speak  not  according  to  this  word,  it  is  because  there  is 
no  light  in  them."  And  it  may  be  necessary  to  observe, 
that  the  question  is  not,  were  all  these  spiritual  songs 
founded  on  some  divine  revelation.  It  may  be  admit- 
ted that  some  of  them  were  only  remotely  or  obscurely 
so ;  but  that  they  were  all  of  this  character,  is  what  no 
man  will  venture  to  affirm.  And  where  it  has  been, 
or  will  be  shown,  that  any  of  them  are  not  agreeable  to 
that  rule,  no  man  will  go  further  than  the  writer  of  this, 
in  repudiating  and  lifting  up  the  voice  against  them. 
On  this  point,  the  church  judicatories,  to  whom  it 
belongs,  ought  to  be  particularly  careful — as  careful  as 
in  the  formation  of  her  creed,  or  Confession  of  Faith; 
for  error  is  apt,  if  not  apter,  to  creep  in  through  an 
erroneous  system  of  Psalmody,  as  an  erroneous  creed. 
And  if  the  Church  does  her  duty  in  regard  to  her 
Psalmody,  there  is  no  more  danger  to  be  apprehended 
from  that  quarter,  than  from  her  Confession  of  Faith. 
On  the  contrary,  they  will  both  combine  in  recom- 
mending her  to  all  who  are  enquiring  the  way  to  Zion. 
And  here  we  feel  it  our  duty  to  remark,  that  "  the 
Presbyterian  church  in  the  United  States  "  has  been 
suffering  somewhat  in  her  purity  and  beauty,  by  some 
men,  who,  through  a  spirit  of  novelty,  have  unadvisedly 
introduced  into  her  private  and  sometimes  iiito  her 
public  worship,  hymns  which  have  not  received  the 
examination  and  sanction  of  her  highest  judicatory,  the 
General  Assembly.  This,  in  our  view,  is  irregular 
and  disorderly,  and  lays  a  stumbling  block  in  the  way 
of  some  in  receiving  an  Evangelical  Psalmody. 

But  here  may  be  asked,  what  is  become   of  the 
hymns  and  spiritual  songs  which  were  so  frequent  in 
the  primitive  ages  of  Christianity  ?     They  have  per- 
ished in  the  course  of  time,  like  many  other  writings 
3 


26  PSALMODY. 

on  divine  subjects :  the  Psalms  composed  mider  a 
special  divine  influence  by  some  of  the  church  of  Cor- 
inth, not  excepted.  1  Cor.  14  :  26.  But  the  church 
has  not  suff*ered  any  material  loss  by  the  circumstance, 
as  she  has  the  Bible  on  which  they  were  founded,  and 
can  draw  from  that  inexhaustible  fountain  of  spiritual 
light  and  life,  whatever  she  may  deem  necessary  for 
perfecting  her  faith  and  practice. 

We  will  close  this  number  by  observing,  that  from 
the  compendious  history  of  the  church  in  regard  to  her 
Psalmody,  which  we  have  given,  we  may  see  whence 
it  is  that  Dr.  Pressly  and  others  have  deceived  them- 
selves, and  undesignedly  led  others  astray  on  this  sub- 
ject. In  their  statement  of  the  question,  and  arguing 
upon  it,  they  seem  to  take  it  for  granted,  that  the  hymns 
and  spiritual  songs  which  have  been,  and  are  in  the 
church,  are  the  mere  inventions  of  the  composers,  and 
originated  from  them,  and  not  from  the  word  of  God, 
nor  founded  upon  it.  This  is  terrifying  to  the  seriou=; 
but  uninstructed  mind,  and  has  made  many  a  proselyte 
to  a  Judaizing  Psalmody.  And  from  this,  and  this 
alone,  can  we  account  for  the  applications  which  they 
make  of  the  cases  and  deaths  of  Nadab  and  Abihu, 
and  Uzzah  of  ojd ;  but  their  statement  is  not  true, 
and  they  do  great  injustice  to  the  advocates  of  an 
evangehcal  Psalmody,  but  we  would  hope  not  inten- 
tionally. The  true  statement  of  the  question  is  :  are 
we  in  our  prayers,  and  preachers  in  their  sermons,  to 
take  the  subject  matter  from  those  portions  of  the  word 
of  God  that  are  suited  to  those  parts  of  divine  worship, 
but  in  our  singing  to  be  confined  to  the  book  of  Psalms, 
those  portions  that  relate  to  Jewish  localities,  rites  and 
ceremonies,  not  excepted.  We  have  often  wondered 
that  they  did  not  see,  that  while  their  prayers  and  ser- 
mons were  evangelical,  a  considerable  part  of  their 
singing  is  really  Jewish.  But  we  have  ceased  to 
wonder,  when  we  reflect  on  the  strong  hold  which  the 
prejudice  of  education  once  had  in  our  own  mind  on 
this  very  subject. 


PRECEPTS.  27 


NO.  IV. 

Precepts  for  ati  Evangelical  Psalmody,  shewn  from 
CoL  3  :  16,  17,  m  connectioii  ivith  2    Tim.  3  :  16. 

In  the  beginning  of  his  third  number.  Dr.  Pressly 
**  desires  his  reader  to  keep  in  remembrance  the  great 
point  in  dispute  in  the  controversy  on  Psalmody." 
We  have  the  same  request  to  make  of  our  readers, 
for  reasons  which  will  hereafter  appear.  The  point 
is  this.  Our  reviewer  affirms  "  that  we  have  no  au- 
thority" to  use  in  the  praises  of  God  any  portion  of 
scripture  but  the  book  of  Psalms.  On  the  other  hand 
we  believe  that  while  ministers  of  the  gospel  are  war- 
ranted to  draw  the  subject-matter  of  their  sermons 
from  the  whole  word  of  God,  and  all  men  the  subject 
matter  of  their  prayers  from  the  same  source,  so  we 
are  to  draw  the  subject  matter  of  our  praises  from  the 
same  inexhaustible  fountain.  Our  reviewer  says  that 
we  have  not  proved  our  position,  and  somewhat 
vauntingly  affirms  that  there  is  no  such  proof  in  the 
scriptures.  Now,  the  reader  of  our  "Inquiry"  can- 
not but  remember  that  in  the  second  chapter  we  pro- 
duced both  precept  and  precedent — the  precept  from 
Col.  3  ;  16,  and  the  precedent  from  songs  of  praise 
recorded  in  Rev.  12  :  10,  12  ;  15  :  2,  4 ;  1  :  1,  7  ; 
the  two  first  of  which  have,  in  our  opinion,  been  sung 
in  the  church,  and  the  third  will  be  sung,  and  none  of 
them  to  be  found  in  the  book  of  Psalms,  and  conse- 
quently overturn  his  system  of  Psalmody.  We  ex- 
pected that  he  would  have  turned  the  force  of  his 
literary  and  critical  artillery  against  these  in  his  third 
number,  but  he  confines  it  to  the  demolition  of  the 
precept,  as  he  supposes,  but  from  which  we  had  not 
argued  at  all,  but  mentioned  incidentally  only,  as 
what  had  been  successfully  argued  by  Latta,  Baird, 


28  PSALMODY. 

and  others,  and  this  accounts  for  our  having  only  "  a 
few  Hnes  on  the  point,"  and  of  which  he  complains. 

But  we  return  to  the  precept  in  Col.  3  :  16,   and 
say,  that  this  passage  when  taken  in  connection  with 

2  Tim.  -3  :  16,  estabhshes  the  right  of  the  church  to 
take  her  songs  of  praise  from  any  portion  of  the  Old 
or  New  Testament  that  is  suited  to  that  part  of  divine 
worship.  The  latter  of  these  passages  reads  thus  : — 
"All  scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is 
profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for 
instruction  in  righteousness,  that  the  man  of  God  may 
be  perfect,  and  thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good 
w^orks."  We  need  scarcely  observe,  that  there  are 
none  who  will  understand  the  apostle  as  saying  in  this 
verse  that  the  scriptures  were  given  for  the  use  of 
ministers  of  the  gospel  only,  but  for  the  instruction  of 
all  men,  and  for  theirs  in  an  especial  manner.     Coi. 

3  :  16,  also  reads  thus  :  "Let  the  word  of  Christ  dwell 
in  you  richly  in  all  wisdom,  teaching  and  admonishing 
one  another  in  psalms  and  hymns,  and  spiritual  songs, 
singing  with  grace  in  your  hearts  to  the  Lord.  And 
whatsoever  ye  do  in  Avord  or  deed,  do  all  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord  Jesus,  giving  thanks  to  God,  and  the 
Father  by  him."  We  would  here  remark,  that  these 
two  passages  are  evidently  parallels  in  their  general 
scope  and  design,  the  words  "All  scripture"  answer- 
ing to  "  the  word  of  Christ,"  when  used  in  an  extend- 
ed sense,  "  doctrine  "  to  "  teaching,"  and  "admonish- 
ing" to  "reproof,  correction,  and  instruction  in 
righteousness."  But  if  our  application  of  the  word 
"admonishing"  will  be  objected  to,  our  argument 
only  requires  that  it  will  be  admitted  that  doctrine  and 
teaching  mean  the  same  thing,  and  this  cannot  be  de- 
nied. Now  as  the  apostle  says  in  the  first  of  these 
passages,  that  all  scrij^ture  is  given  by  inspiration  of 
God,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  and  in  the  other, 
that  christians  are  to  teach  one  another  in  psalms  and 
hymns  and  spiritual  songs ;  it  follows  by  inevitable 


THE    WARRANT.  29 

consequence,  that  these  psalms,  hymns  and  sph'itual 
songs  are  to  be  taken  from  the  New,  as  well  as  from 
the  Old  Testament.     But  our  reviewer  tells  us  that 
the  chapter  of  which  the  abov^e  passage  is  a  part,   en- 
joins various  duties,  and  among  these  to  have  the  mind 
well  enriched  with  "  the  word  of  Christ,"  and  to  sing- 
psalms  and  hymns  and  spiritual  songs,  but  "  not  to 
make  or  compose  them."     How  that  is  will  be  seen 
hereafter,  but  we  would  remark,  that  although  he  does 
not  positively  say  that  the  clause,   "Let  the  word  of 
Christ  dwell  richly  in  you  in  all  wisdom,"   &c.,  is  a 
duty  distinct  from  praising  God  in  psalms,  &c.      Yet 
when  commenting  on  the  verse,  he  speaks  of  it  as  if 
the  singing  of  psalms  and  hymns  and  songs  was  not 
connected  with  having  the  mind  deeply  imbued  with 
the  "  word  of  Christ,"  and  he  punctuates  it  according- 
ly.    "  It  is  (he  says)  undoubtedly  the  will  of  God, 
that  the  precious  truths  of  the   gospel   should  dwell 
richly  in  all  true  believers,  and  that  they  sing  psalms 
and  hymns  and  songs  in  the  worship  of  God."     But 
that  the  verse  contains  not  two,  but  one  duty  strongly 
enforced,  is  evident  from  the  consideration  that  if  two 
distinct  duties  had  been  designed,  it  would  have  been 
differently  constructed  and  worded  from  what  it  is. 
It  would  have  read  thus,  "Let  the  word  of  Christ  dwell 
richly  in  you  in  all  wisdom,  and  teach  and  admonish 
one  another.     But  the  words,  "teaching  and  admon- 
ishing "  are  not  in  the  imperative  mood,  but  in  the 
participal  form,  and  look  back  to  some   antecedent, 
from  which  the  church  in  Colosse  were  to  teach  and 
admonish  one  another."     But  there  is  no  antecedent 
but  the  phrase,  "  The  word  of  Christ,"  and  this  not 
only  gives  the  necessary  information,  but  inseparably 
connects  the  clauses  together,  as  containing  one  and 
the  same  duty. 

And  here  an  important  inquiry  presents  itself,  im- 
portant for  ascertaining  the  true  meaning  of  the  pas- 
sage,  namely,   what   are   we   to   understand    by   the 
3* 


30  PSALMODY. 

phrase,  ''The  word  of  Christ?"  We  would  remark, 
that  it  is  pecuKar  to  the  writings  of  the  apostle  Paul, 
and  is  never  used  by  him  but  once,  and  that  too  in 
connection  with  singing  psalms,  hymns  and  spiritual 
songs.  It  would  seem  to  us  to  import  the  same  thing, 
as  the  phrases,  *'  The  word  of  the  Gospel,"  or  "the 
Gospel  of  Christ;"  or  all  those  doctrines,  precepts 
and  promises  revealed  in  the  New  Testament,  relative 
to  the  salvation  of  man  through  a  crucified  Christ ; 
with  all  the  means  of  grace  appointed  for  interesting 
us  in  that  salvation.  We  do  not  say,  that  it  does  not 
imply  in  it  all  the  doctrines,  precepts  and  promises  con- 
tained in  the  Bible  :  but  for  the  reasons  assigned,  and 
the  peculiarity  of  the  phrase  itself,  we  think  that  in 
Col.  3  :  16,  it  has  reference  to  the  christian  dispensa- 
tion, in  an  especial  manner.  And  it  is  something  of  a 
misrepresentation  in  our  reviewer  to  say,  that  in  our 
Inquiry,  "we  have  changed  our  tone  in  regard  to  the 
meaning  of  the  phrase  :"  for  what  is  more  common  in 
the  scriptures,  than  for  a  word  to  be  used  in  some  pla- 
ces in  a  more  or  less  extended  sense,  than  in  others. 
Nor  does  this  circumstance  "  exalt  the  authority  of  one 
part  of  the  word  of  God  to  the  disparagement  of  ano- 
ther," as  he  says  it  does.  We  were  surprised  to  hear 
him  say  so,  and  no  less  surprised  to  hear  him  say,  that 
if  by  "  the  word  of  Christ  we  are  to  understand  the 
New  Testament  exclusively,  then  it  would  seem  to 
follow,  that  the  Old  Testament  is  not  the  word  of 
Christ,  and  therefore  of  not  equal  authority  in  the 
church."  We  confess  that  we  did  not  expect  such 
reasoning  from  our  reviewer.  In  1  John  5  :  7,  it  is 
said  that  "  there  are  three  that  bear  record  in  heaven, 
the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  these 
three  are  one ;"  now  is  there  any  such  expression 
in  the  Old  Testament  that  "  these  three  are  one," 
and  does  this  prove  "  that  the  Old  Testament  is  not 
of  equal  authority  in  the  church  with  the  New."  A 
little  reflection  before  he  wrote  would  have  preveiited 


THE    WARRANT.  31 

him  from  falling  into  the  above  loose  train  of  reason- 
ing, and  saved  him  the  trouble  of  writing  the  long 
dissertation  which  he  wrote  for  our  "  special  bene- 
fit;" or  to  prove  to  us  "that  the  ancient  prophets 
were  under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  as 
truly  as  were  the  aposdes,"  for  we  have  never  had  a 
doubt  on  the  subject.     It  would  also  have  saved  him 
the  trouble  of  wriUng  the  dissertation  on  the  prejudice 
of  education,  as  its  obvious  tendency  is  to  induce  those 
who  may  have  received  some  wrong  views  on  divine 
things  in  their  younger  days  to  persevere  in  maintaining 
them,  and  not  to  renounce  them,  even  when  clearly 
pointed  out.     Above  all  it  would  have  prevented  the 
attempt  to  prove  that  the  phrase,  "  the  word  of  Christ," 
means  the  whole  word  of  God:  for  should  he  have 
done  this,  it  w^ould  prove  all  that  we  desire  to  prove 
— that  we  are  w^arranted  to  draw  our  songs  of  praise 
from  the  New,  as  well  as  from  the  Old  Testament.    It 
is,  as  he  says,  a  phrase  "  very  accommodating,"  to  us, 
but  ruinous  to  his  views  on  the  subject ;  and  indeed 
w^e  are  surprised  to  find  him  meddling  with  it  at  all. 
But  as  some  on  this  subject  need  "line  upon  line," 
and  "  precept  upon  precept,"  we  proceed  to  a  farther 
examinadon  of  this  important  passage.     The  apostle 
not  only  exhorts  the  Colossians  to  have  tjieir  minds 
richly  furnished  with  "  the  w^ord  of  Christ,"  but  from 
it  to  teach  one  another  in  "Psalms,  and  hymns,  and 
spiritual  songs."     A  question  of  considerable  import- 
ance in  this  discussion,  here  also  presents  itself — how 
they  were  thus  to  teach  one  another.     We  have  read 
and  heard  three  different  interpretations  of  this  word. 
I.  That  of  some  commentators  who  say,  that  it  is  an 
injunction  on  those  who  can  read,  to  teach  those  who 
cannot,  by  reading  or  repeating  to  them  portions  of  the 
book  of  Psalms.    Now,  as  the  Psalms  are  comparative- 
ly obscure,  and  speak  of  a  Saviour  as  yet  to  come,  we 
think  that  if  that  had  been  the  aposde's  design,  he  would 
rather  have  recommended  the  New  Testament  scrip- 


32  PSALMODY. 

tures,  which  speak  of  the  Saviour  as  come,  and  of  the 
way  of  salvation  by  faith  in  his  blood. 

II.  That  of  those  who  think  that  the  church  is  to  be 
confined  in  her  Psalmody  to  the  book  of  Psalms,  and 
accordingly  understand  the  word  "teach"  as  an  in- 
junction on  ministers  to  explain  the  Psalm  to  the  peo- 
ple before  they  sing  it,  that  they  may  "  sing  with  the 
understanding,"  or  understand  what  they  sing.  And 
indeed,  where  there  are  churches  who  have  embraced 
the  above  system  of  Psalmody,  explaining  the  Psalm 
before  singing  is  not  only  commendable,  but  in  many 
cases  indispensably  necessary.  It  enables  the  weak  but 
serious  worshipper  to  affix  the  proper  idea  to  a  word 
that  is  typical,  or  otherwise  obscure  ;  but  then  this  is 
contrary  to  our  Reviewer's  peculiar  views,  who  tells  us 
that  the  worshipper  does  not  sing  the  explanations,  but 
sings  the  Psalm  "  literally  "  as  it  is  in  his  Psalm  book, 
without  any  regard  to  the  explanations.  That  he  is  pe- 
culiar in  his  views  we  know,  from  conversation  with  some 
who  agree  with  him  that  the  church  is  to  be  confined 
in  her  Psalmody  to  the  book  of  Psalms.  We  have 
heard  many  such  say,  and  justly  too,  that  they  highly 
esteem  those  explanations,  as  it  enables  them  in  many 
instances  to  worship  God  "  in  truth  as  well  as  in  spirit." 
The  III.  interpretation  of  the  word  "teaching,"  in 
this  passage,  is,  that  of  those  who  with  ourselves  be- 
lieve, that  it  is  the  j^rivilege  of  the  church  to  draw  her 
songs  of  praise  to  God  from  both  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments ;  and  that  in  the  word  the  apostle  enjoins 
it  on  those  who  may  be  qualified  to  frame  those  songs, 
to  enrich  them  well  from  the  word  of  Christ,  or  wdth 
the  important  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  for  the  instruc- 
tion of  others,  in  that  part  of  worship  called  praise. 
And  not  only  so,  but  to  admonish  one  another,  to  asjoire 
after  gracious  affections  in  singing  those  songs,  or  as 
the  apostle  expresses  it,  "to  sing  with  grace  in  their 
hearts  to  the  Lord."  It  is  now  left  to  the  candid  and 
discerning  reader  to  say,  which  of  the  preceding  inter- 


THE    WARRANT.  33 

pretations  is  most  natural  and  obvious,  and  most  con- 
sistent with  the  whole  scope  of  the  apostle  in  the  passage. 
But  another  important  question  in  this  discussion 
here  presents  itself  also — what  did  the  apostle  under- 
stand by  psalms,  hymns  and  spiritual  songs  ?  Our 
reviewer  tells  us  that  all  these  are  to  be  found  in  the 
book  of  Psalms,  under  the  titles  of  the  Hebrew  words 
"  Mizmorim,  Tehillim,  Shirim,  signifying  psalms, 
hymns,  songs."  And  we  have  seen  by  other  writers 
on  the  subject,  the  Rev.  John  Brown,  of  Haddington, 
adduced  as  authority  that  psalms,  hymns,  and  spiritual 
songs,  denote  only  different  kinds  of  poetic  composi- 
tions. That  venerable  Father  does  indeed  say  in  his 
Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  under  the  word  psalm,  "  that 
the  psalms  may  denote  such  as  were  sung  on  instru- 
ments, hymns  such  as  contain  only  matter  of  praise, 
and  spiritual  songs  such  as  contain  doctrines,  history 
and  prophecy  for  men's  instruction,  Eph.  3:  19. 
Now,  that  this  division  and  definition  is  imaginary,  is 
evident  to  ourselves  for  the  following  reasons.  In  the 
Seotuasfint  translation  of  the  book  of  Psalms — Psal- 

J.  o 

mos,  Psalm,  and  humnos,  hymn,  are  both  used  in  the 
title  of  the  sixty-seventh  Psalm,  and  according  to  the 
above  definition  it  partakes  of  the  character  of  Psalm 
and  hymn  ;  and  moreover,  the  first  and  second  verses 
only  could  be  sung  with  musical  instruments,  for  the 
remainder  of  it  is  confined  to  praise.  In  the  forty- 
eighth,  eighty-third,  and  ninety-second  Psalms,  Psal- 
mos,  Psalm,  and  Odee,  song,  are  in  the  title.  And  in 
the  seventy-sixth  Psalm,  which  contains  only  doctrine 
and  history,  we  find  in  the  title  Psalmos,  Humnos, 
and  Odee.  And  although  our  reviewer  tells  us,  that 
Psalmos,  Humnos,  and  Odee,  are  generally  prefixed 
to  many  of  the  Psalms,  he  does  not  tell  us  any  thing 
about  these  double  and  sometimes  treble  titles. 

Besides,  from  the  hundred  and  nineteenth  to  the 
hundred  and  thirty-fifth  Psalm,  Odee  alone  is  in  the 
titles,  nor  is  the  word  lyneiimatike,  spiritual,  prefixed 


34  PSALMODY. 

to  any  of  them,  as  is  the  case  in  Eph.  5:19,  and  Col. 
3:16.  This  circumstance  is  worthy  of  particular  at- 
tention. If  in  Col.  3  :  16,  the  apostle  only  meant  the 
songs  mentioned  in  the  book  of  Psalms,  why  did  he 
prefix  the  word  imeiimatike  to  them.  There  was  no 
necessity  for  it,  for  the  sake  of  distinction,  inasmuch 
as  the  Colossians  were  familiar  with  those  songs.  But 
if  he  meant  by  them,  songs  composed  by  any  member 
of  the  church,  there  was  high  necessity  for  it,  to  dis- 
tinguish them  from  the  songs  of  the  heathen  around 
them,  especially  the  songs  sung  at  the  feasts  of  Bac- 
chus, and  other  heathen  gods.  From  the  above  cir- 
cumstances and  facts,  we  think  we  are  warranted  to 
say,  that  the  writers  of  the  book  of  Psalms  used  the 
words,  Mizmorin,  Tehillen,  Shirim,  as  synonymous 
terms  for  any  sacred  poem  used  in  the  worship  of 
God,  irrespective  of  its  particular  contents,  and  that 
the  above  division  and  distinction  was  invented  for  the 
support  and  defence  of  a  favorite  principle  and  prac- 
tice. This  opinion  is  strengthened  by  another  fact, 
tliat  wherever  Christ  or  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment refer  to  any  portion  of  the  book  of  Psalms,  they 
do  not  say,  that  psalm,  that  hymn,  or  that  song — but 
*'  the  book  of  Psalms,"  or  the  Psalm,  a  word  that 
simply  signifies,  to  sing  with  an  instrument  of  music. 
Thus,  in  Luke  20:  42,  Christ  himself  said — "And 
David  himself  saith  in  the  book  of  Psalms,  the  Lord 
said  unto  my  Lord,  sit  thou  at  my  right  hand,  till  I 
make  thine  enemies  thy  footstool."  Again,  Acts  13  : 
33.  "As  it  is  also  written  in  the  second  Psalm,  thou 
art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee."  And 
now  again,  it  is  left  with  the  candid  reader  to  say, 
whether  Paul  in  Eph.  5  :  19,  and  Col.  3:  16,  meant 
the  above  alleged  kinds  of  poetic  compositions  in  the 
book  of  Psalms,  or  those  hymns  and  spiritual  songs 
which  were  composed  from  divine  revelations,  and 
which  we  have  shewn  in  our  third  number,  were  used 
in  the  Patriarchal,  Mosaic,  and  present  dispensations 
of  grace. 


THE    WARRANT.  35 

But  the  proof  for  an  evangelical  Psalmody,  from 
Col.  3  :  16,  is  not  yet  finished.  After  the  apostle  had 
exhorted  the  church  of  Colosse  to  teach  and  admonish 
one  another  in  Psalms,  and  hymns,  and  spiritual  songs, 
he  adds: — "And  whatsoever  you  do  in  word  or  deed, 
do  all  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  giving  thanks  to 
God,  and  the  Father  by  him."  And  here  again,  an- 
other question  of  much  importance  in  this  controversy 
presents  itself.  What  are  we  to  understand  by  the 
words,  "In  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  in  this  verse. 
Our  opponents  say,  that  they  mean  approaching  God 
through  the  mediation  of  Christ,  as  there  is  no  access 
to  an  infinitely  holy,  and  just  God,  but  through  a 
mediator.  That  is  indeed  a  prominent  and  cardinal 
doctrine  of  the  scriptures,  and  although  it  is  admitted 
that  the  doctrine  is  included  in  the  words,  yet  we  are 
convinced  from  the  phraseology  itself,  and  from  a 
parallel  phraseology  in  John  16  :  24,  that  the  apostle 
in  the  words,  meant  something  more  by  them,  than 
approaching  God  through  a  mediator.  In  John  16  : 
24,  Christ  said  to  his  disciples,  "Hitherto  have  ye 
asked  nothing  in  my  name."  What,  now,  did  or  could 
Christ  mean  by  those  words?  Did  he,  or  could  he, 
mean,  that  they  had  never  prayed  to  God  through  a 
mediator?  No — for  as  already  observed,  there  is  no 
acceptable  access  to  an  ofiended  God,  but  through 
the  mediation  of  another.  His  meaning  therefore  must 
be,  that  they  had  not  prayed  in  his  name  as  "  the 
Mediator;"  and  who  does  not  see,  that  it  is  one  thing 
to  approach  God  through  a  Mediator  held  out  in  the 
Old  Testament,  in  a  general  revelation  and  promise, 
and  another  thing  to  approach  him  in  the  name  of  a 
particular  person  as  that  Mediator,  "and  the  only 
Mediator  between  God  and  man." 

The  attention  of  the  reader  is  requested  particularly 
to  these  words,  as  a  due  consideration  of  them  will, 
we  are  persuaded,  lead  him  into  correct  views  on  the 
subject  of  Psalmody.     The  Mediator  w^as  made  known 


36  PSALMODY. 

in  the  Old  Testament  under  the  names  of  Shiloh,  Mes- 
siah, Son  of  God,  the  King,  and  David's  Lord,  but 
it  is  in  the  New  Testament,  and  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment alone,  that  it  is  revealed  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
is  that  Mediator  :  and  hence  the  exhortation  and  in- 
junction— "  Whatsoever  ye  do  in  word  or  deed,  do 
all  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  giving  thanks  to 
God  and  the  Father  by  him."  We  need  scarcely 
say,  that  the  duty  enjoined  cannot  be  discharged  in 
the  full  meaning  of  the  apostle  by  confining  ourselves 
exclusively  to  the  book  of  Psalms,  but  in  songs  re- 
cognising Jesus  as  the  "Mediator  of  the  New  Cove- 
nant," and  who  purchased  the  church  with  his  own 
blood.  And  we  would  now  respectfully  ask  those 
who  are  for  confining  the  church  in  her  Psalmody  to 
the  book  of  Psalms,  which  speak  of  the  Mediator  only 
under  obscure  types,  and  as  yet  to  come,  how  they 
can  reconcile  their  doctrine  and  practice  with  the 
above  apostolic  injunction.  And  farther,  how  does 
their  doctrine  comport  with  what  the  apostle  says  on 
this  very  subject,  in  Phil.  2 :  9,  11. — Having  mention- 
ed in  the  preceding  verse,  Christ's  humiliation,  and 
"  obedience  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross," 
he  adds — "  W^herefore  God  hath  highly  exalted  him, 
and  given  him  a  name  which  is  above  every  name  : 
that  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of 
things  in  heaven,  and  things  on  earth,  and  things  under 
the  earth :  and  that  every  tongue  should  confess  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father." 
We  have  now  j^roduced  an  apostolic  precept  or 
command  for  a  Gospel  Psalmody  in  four  distinct  argu- 
ments deduced  from  Col.  3  :  16,  17.  1.  From  the 
sixteenth  verse  viewed  in  connection  with  2  Tim.  3  : 
16,  2.  From  the  phrase,  "  the  word  of  Christ."  3. 
From  the  necessary  meaning  of  the  word  "  teaching  " 
in  the  sixteenth  verse.  4.  From  the  apostolic  injunc- 
tion, "  that  whatsoever  we  do,  to  do  all  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord  Jesus."     And  now,  what  has  our  oppo- 


PRECEDEXTS.  37 

nent  produced  in  support  of  his  affirmation,  "  tliat  it 
is  the  will  of  God  that  the  sacred  songs  contained  in 
the  book  of  Psalms  be  sung  in  his  worship,  both  pub- 
lic and  private,  to  the  end  of  the  world,  and  that  we 
have  no  authority  to  use  any  other."  Not  one  word 
from  the  word  of  God  in  either  his  first  or  second 
numbers  :  but  we  expect  to  have  it  in  full  in  his  third 
— we  will  see. 


NO.  V. 

Containing  Scriptural  p-ecedcnts  for  an  Evangelical 
Psalmody. 

Our  readers  will  remember,  that  in  our  last  num- 
ber, at  the  call  of  Dr.  Pressly,  we  adduced  Col.  3  : 
16,  17,  as  a  preceptive  proof  that  the  church  is  au- 
thorised to  use  an  evangelical  Psalmody  in  the  worship 
of  God.  This  proof  consists  in  four  distinct  argu- 
ments deduced  from  that  passage.  1.  From  the  16th 
verse  viewed  in  connection  with  2  Tim.  3:  36.  2. 
From  the  remarkable  phrase — "  The  word  of  Christ," 
in  that  verse.  3.  From  the  necessary  meaning  of  the 
word  "teaching"  in  that  passage.  4.  From  the 
apostolic  injunction  in  the  17th  verse,  "that  whatso- 
ever we  do  in  word  or  deed,  to  do  all  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord  Jesus,  giving  thanks  to  God,  and  the  Father 
by  him."  .  As  we  have  examined  that  passage  more 
in  detail  than  any  writer  w^ho  has  gone  before  us,  as 
far  as  we  recollect,  and  as  it  contains  so  many  dis- 
tinct arguments  for  a  gospel  Psalmody,  we  expected 
that  our  Reviewer  would  endeavor  in  his  next  num- 
ber to  point  out  the  insufficiency  or  illegitimacy  of 
those  aro^uments.  But  will  not  the  public  be  disap- 
4 


SS  PSALMODY. 

pointed,  and  his  friends  mortified,  when  they  find  that 
his  reply  to  those  arguments  is,  "  that  when  he  had 
examined  it,  he  was  disappointed  in  finding,  that  in- 
stead of  a  precept  to  uninspired  men  to  compose 
Psalms  and  hymns  and  songs  to  be  employed  in  the 
worship  of  God,  it  is  a  direction  to  christians  generally 
in  relation  to  singing  with  grace  in  their  hearts  to  the 
Lord."  That  is  indeed  one  of  the  directions,  but 
surely,  that  "  the  word  of  Christ  should  dwell  richly 
in  them  in  all  wisdom,"  and  that  from  this  word, 
*'  they  should  teach  one  another  in  Psalms  and  hymns 
and  spiritual  songs  "  is  another  ;  and  that  "  whatsoever 
they  should  do  in  word  or  deed,  to  do  all  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  is  another  also.  How  he  could, 
then,  pass  over,  in  such  a  summary  manner,  what  we 
have  said  on  that  passage,  may  be  a  matter  of  surprise 
to  both  his  friends  and  opponents  on  this  question. 
The  secret,  we  think,  is  this  :  In  our  last  number  we 
assigned  reasons  why  the  phrase,  "  The  word  of 
Christ,"  must  be  understood  as  referring  to  the  New 
Testament  Scriptures  ;  and  as  it  is  enjoined  on  the 
Colossians,  and  by  consequence,  on  all  other  churches, 
to  draw  their  songs  of  praise  from  that  word,  we  drew 
the  obvious  inference  that  a  gospel  Psalmody  was,  at 
the  same  time,  the  privilege  and  duty  of  the  church. 
To  counteract  this  inference,  our  Reviewer  tried,  in 
his  last  number,  to  prove  that  the  phrase  had  reference 
to  the  old  as  well  as  to  the  New  Testament ;  not  see- 
ing, until  we  pointed  it  out  to  him,  that  if  he  had  even 
succeeded,  it  would  prove  all  that  we  desire  to  prove, 
that  we  are  privileged  to  draw  our  songs  of  praise  to 
God,  from  any  part  of  the  Old  or  New  Testament 
that  is  suited  to  that  delightful  part  of  divine  wor- 
ship. This  accounts  for  the  summary  manner  in 
which  he  has  passed  over  that  important  passage,  and 
his  evident  unwillingness  to  meddle  with  it  again. 
But  still  he  demurs,  and  says,  "  that  the  great  question 
at  issue  is  plainly  this  :  have  we  authority  to  use  in 


PRECEDEXTS.  39 

the  worship  of  God,  evangehcal  songs  composed  by 
uninspired  men,  or  have  we  not."  That  we  have,  is 
indubitably  evident  to  ourselves  from  the  Apostle's 
injunction  to  the  church  at  Colosse,  unless  he  believes, 
and  can  prove,  that  all  the  members  of  that  church 
were  inspired  persons.  It  is  now  left  to  the  reader  to 
say,  if  the  passage  which  we  have  been  examining 
does  not  decide  the  question  in  regard  to  the  use  of 
an  evangelical  Psalmody,  as  it  respects  the  arguments 
and  objections  of  Dr.  Pressly. 

Although  we  deem  a  Scripture  precept,  either  ex- 
press in  itself  or  legitimately  deduced  from  Scriptural 
premises,  sufficient  to  direct  our  faitli  and  practice, 
yet  if  there  are  Scriptural  precedents,  or  examples  for 
a  practice,  it  gives  additional  force  to  the  precept. 
In  the  second  chapter  of  our  Inquiry,  after  adducing 
Col.  3  :  16,  17,  as  a  precept  or  command  to  use  an 
evangelical  Psalmody  in  the  worship  of  God,  we  pro- 
ceeded to  adduce  precedents,  or  examples  for  the 
practice.  As  the  opponents  of  an  evangelical  Psalm- 
ody contend  that  we  are  to  confine  ourselves  to  the 
book  of  Psalms  exclusively,  we  adduced  the  song  of 
Mary  the  mother  of  Jesus,  and  the  song  of  Zacharias 
the  father  of  John  the  Baptist,  recorded  in  the  first 
chapter  of  Luke,  as  precedents  of  songs  not  found  in 
the  book  of  Psalms,  from  the  belief  at  the  time  that 
our  opponents  could  not,  and  would  not,  object  to  their 
use  in  the  worship  of  God.  Our  Reviewer,  however, 
objects,  that  as  Mary  and  Zacharias  were  inspired 
persons,  and  their  songs  inspired,  they  cannot  be  ad- 
mitted as  proof  that  songs  composed  by  uninspired 
persons  are  to  be  used  in  the  praises  of  God.  We 
were  aVare  of  all  this,  and  as  said,  we  adduced  them 
only  as  songs  which  we  thought  might  be  safely  sung 
in  divine  worship,  but  it  seems  they  are  rejected  by 
our  opponents,  and  those  who  think  alike  with  him  on 
this  subject. 

We  have  said  in  our  "Inquiry,"  that  there  are  in 


40  PSALMODY. 

the  book  of  "  The  Revelation," — that  book,  which  it 
is  to  be  presumed  Mr.  Reid  has  examined  with  partic- 
ular care — three  songs  of  praise,  and  to  which  v»  e  now 
add  a  fourth,  the  two  first  of  which  have  been  sung  in 
the  church,  the  third  most  probably,  and  the  fourth 
will  be  sung,  and  which,  it  will  not  be  pretended  are 
in  the  book  of  Psalms.  Dr.  P.  as  the  substitute  of 
Mr.  Reid,  rephes — "that  it  will  be  admitted  by  all 
who  regard  the  Bible  as  the  w^ord  of  God,  that  the 
songs  which  are  recorded  in  the  book  of  the  "Revela- 
tion" are  the  productions  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  in 
other  words,  that  John  is  the  author  of  them  or  spake 
as  he  was  moved  by  the  Divine  Spirit."  That  John 
was  under  the  Spirit  of  infallibility  when  he  wrote 
'•'The  Revelation,"  is  admitted.  It  is  also  admitted, 
that  he  faithfully  recorded  all  that  he  saw  and  heard  in 
vision,  but  that  all  that  he  saw  and  heard  came  origi- 
nally from  the  Spirit,  or  that  the  Spirit  was  the  author 
of  them  in  the  same  sense  that  he  is  the  author  of  the 
book  of  Psalms,  or  of  the  plan  of  redemption  through 
Christ,  we  cannot  admit.  For  in  that  case,  we  would 
be  compelled  to  admit  that  the  blasphemies  of  the  beast 
with  seven  heads  and  ten  horns,  mentioned  in  the  13th 
chapter,  came  originally  from  the  Spirit,  or  that  the 
Spirit  was  the  author  of  those  blasphemies.  As  just 
now  said,  John  faithfully  recorded  what  he  saw  and 
heard,  the  different  actors  introduced  from  time  to 
time,  saying  and  doing;  but  to  say  that  he  is  "the 
author  of  all  that  he  heard,  whether  good  or  bad,  is 
worse  than  absurd.  The  sayings  and  doings  belonged 
to  the  actors  themselves,  and  the  divine  spirit  is  no 
farther  the  author  of  them,  than  as  revealing  them  to 
John  to  be  published  for  the  benefit  of  the  church. 

And  it  is  but  to  read  the  first  of  these  songs  to  see, 
that  it  was  composed  in  the  church,  and  not  by  John 
as  the  immediate  author  of  it,  and  sung,  as  we  think, 
in  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century,  vrhen  the  church 
was  rescued  from  heathen  persecution  by  Constantine 


PRECEDENTS.  41 

the  Great.  But  before  we  place  this  song  before  the 
reader,  it  may  be  necessary  to  observe,  that  in  the 
Apocalyptic  writings,  "Heaven"  is  the  symbol  of  the 
church.  Mat.  25:  1.  And  as  this  soug;  was  suno;  in 
the  church,  here  is  a  precedent  of  a  spiritual  song  sung 
in  the  worship  of  God,  and  the  song  necessarily 
composed  by  men  not  inspired.  Rev.  12 :  10,  12. 
"And  I  heard  a  loud  voice  saying  in  heaven,"  or  in 
the  church,  "Now  is  come  salvation  and  strength,  and 
the  kingdom  of  our  God,  and  the  power  of  his  Christ; 
for  the  accuser  of  our  brethren  is  cast  down,  which 
accused  them  before  God,  day  and  night.  And  they 
overcame  him  by  the  blood  of  the  Lamb,  and  by  the 
word  of  his  testimony;  and  they  loved  not  their  lives 
unto  the  death.  Therefore,  rejoice  ye  heavens,  and  ye 
that  dwell  in  them,  wo  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth, 
and  of  the  sea,  for  the  Devil  is  come  down  unto  you 
in  great  wrath,  because  he  knoweth  that  he  hath  but  a 
short  time." 

The  second  of  these  sono-s  is  recorded  in  Rev.  14: 

o 

1,  5,  and  has  reference,  as  we  also  think,  to  the  preser- 
vation of  the  uncorrupted  church,  symbolized  by  "the 
woman  in  the  wilderness,"  from  the  rise  of  "  The  Man 
of  Sin"  in  the  sixth  century,  to  the  auspicious  era  of 
Reformation ;  and  the  subject  matter  of  it  has  been  sung 
in  the  Protestant  churches  from  that  time  to  the  pres- 
ent day,  with  a  few  exceptions.  "  x\nd  I  stood  upon 
the  sand  of  the  sea,  and  lo !  a  Lamb  stood  on  the  Mount 
Zion" — another  symbol  of  the  church — "  and  with  him 
an  hundred  and  forty-four  thousand" — a  definite  for  an 
indefinite  number, — "having  his  father's  name  written 
on  their  foreheads."  "And  I  heard  a  voice  from 
heaven,"  or  the  church,  "as  the  voice  of  many  waters, 
and  as  the  voice  of  a  great  thunder,  and  I  heard  the 
voice  of  harpers  harping  with  their  harps ;  and  they 
sung  as  it  were*  a  new  song  before  the  throne,   and 

"*  Some  copies   of  the  Greek  testament  want   the    word    translated 
"«5  it  iccre,''''  and  read  as  it  is  in  the  ninth  verse  of  the  fifth   chapter. 
4* 


42  PSALMODY. 

before  the  living  creatures,  and  the  elders ;  and  no  man 
could  learn  that  song,  but  the  hundred  and  forty  and  four 
thousand  that  were  redeemed  from  the  earth.  These 
are  they  which  were  not  defiled  with  women,  for  they 
are  virgins.  These  are  they  which  follow  the  Lamb 
whithersoever  he  goeth.  These  were  redeemed  from 
among  men,  being  the  first  fruits  unto  God  and  the 
Lamb.  And  in  their  mouth  was  found  no  guile,  for 
they  are  without  fault  before  the  throne  of  God." 

And  that  this  new  song  had  reference  to  the  era  of 
the  Reformation,  when  the  pure  gospel  of  Christ 
was  rescued  from  the  idolatry  and  superstition  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  and  preached  to  the  nation  is  evident 
to  ourselves,  from  the  next  following  verses.  "And 
I  saw  another  angel  flying  through  the  midst  of  heaven 
having  the  everlasting  Gospel  to  preach  to  them  that 
dwell  on  the  earth,  and  to  every  nation,  and  kindred 
and  tongue,  and  people;  saying  with  a  loud  voice, 
fear  God,  and  give  glory  to  him ;  for  the  hour  of  his 
judgment  is  come,  and  worship  him  that  made  heaven 
and  earth,  and  the  sea,  and  the  fountains  of  waters. 
And  there  followed  another  angel  saying:  Babylon  is 
fallen,  is  fallen,  that  great  city,  because  she  made  all 
nations  drink  of  the  wine  of  the  wrath  of  her  fornication." 

The  third  song  is  recorded  in  Rev.  15:  2 — 1,  and 
which,  as  we  think,  was  sung  during  the  great  revolu- 
tion in  France,  when  the  vials  of  divine  but  righteous 
wrath  were  poured  out  on  the  nations  who  had  wan- 
tonly shed  the  blood  of  the  saints,  during  the  dominant 
reign  "of  the  Man  of  Sin.     "And  I  saw,  (says  the 

"  And  they  sung  a  new  song."  But  admitting  that  the  reading  of  our 
translation  is  the  most  correct ;  still,  the  words  convey  the  idea,  that  it 
was  not  one  of  the  Old  Testament  songs  ;  for  in  that  case,  it  could  not  he 
called  a  7ietv,  but  an  old  song.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  circumstance, 
that  in  the  following  verse  it  is  said,  that  this  song  had  i-efei-ence  to  Christ: 
"  The  lamb  of  God  who  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world  ;"  but  Christ 
is  no  where  represented  in  the  book  of  Psalms  as  "  redeeming  his  people 
by  his  blood."  Such  phraseology-  is  to  be  found  in  the  New  Testament 
only ;  consequently,  to  be  appropriate,  the  song  must  have  been  talien 
from  that  part  of  the  Holy  Writ. 


PEECEDEXTS.  43 

Prophet)  a  sea  of  glass  mingled  with  fire,"  the  symbol 
of  a  slippery  and  insecure  state,  and  constant  exposure 
to  persecution,  "and  them  that  had  gotten  the  victory 
over  the  beast,  and  over  his  image,  and  over  his  mark, 
and  over  the  number  of  his  name,  standing  on  the  sea 
of  glass,  having  the  harps  of  God.  And  they  sung  the 
song  of  Moses  the  servant  of  God,  and  the  song  of  the 
Lamb,  saying,  great  and  marvellous  are  thy  works. 
Lord  God  Almighty,  just  and  true  are  thy  ways  thou 
king  of  saints.  Who  shall  not  fear  thee,  O  Lord,  and 
glorify  thy  name,  for  thou  only  art  holy;  for  all  nations 
shall  come  and  worship  before  thee,  for  thy  judgments 
are  made  manifest."  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  observe 
that  the  circumstance  of  their  having  obtained  the 
victory  over  the  image,  the  mark,  and  the  number  of 
the  name  of  the  beast,  clearly  characterises  the  Protes- 
tant churches,  or  those  who  have-  renounced  allegiance 
to  the  church  of  Rome.  And  w^ho  does  not  know,  that 
hymns  and  spiritual  songs  composed  from  the  scriptures, 
by  men  not  inspired,  are  sung  in  all  of  them,  with  a 
few  exceptions ;  and  this  is  another  precedent  for 
singing  songs  of  praise  to  God,  which  are  not  found  in 
the  Book  of  Psalms. 

The  fourth  song  is  recorded  in  chapter  19  :  5 — 8, 
and  which  will  be  sung,  as  we  also  think,  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  Millenium,  after  the  battle  of  Arma- 
geddon, recorded  in  chapter  16 :  17 — 21,  when 
Christ  will  espouse  the  purified  church  as  a  chaste 
bride  to  himself.  "And  I  heard  as  it  were  the  voice 
of  a  great  multitude,  and  as  the  voice  of  many  waters, 
and  as  the  voice  of  mighty  thunderings,  saying. 
Alleluia,  for  the  Lord  God  omnipotent  reigneth. 
Let  us  be  glad,  and  rejoice,  and  give  honor  to  him, 
for  the  marriage  of  the  Lamb  is  come,  and  his  wife 
hath  made  herself  ready.  And  to  her  was  granted 
that  she  should  be  arrayed  in  fine  linen,  clean  and 
white,  for  the  fine  linen  is  the  righteousness  of  the 
saints,"  or  an  emblem  of  that  righteousness.     Dr.  P. 


44  PSALMODY. 

tells  us,  "that  he  wants  a  precedent  which  may  be 
pleaded  by  a  man  who  can  lay  no  clami  to  the  spnit  of 
inspiration,  to  authorise  him  to  prepare  songs  of  praise 
to  be  employed  in  the  worship  of  God."  Here,  then, 
are  four  songs  sung,  or  to  be  sung,  in  the  christian 
church,  on  different  memorable  occasions,  and  conse- 
quently composed  by  men  who  laid  no  claim  to 
the  spirit  of  inspiration ;  for  we  do  not  know  that  this 
gift  continued  in  the  church  longer  than  the  two  or 
three  first  centuries. 

And  to  this  we  would  add,  that  a  new  song  of  praise, 
the  song  of  redeeming  love — is  foretold  and  promised 
by  Isaiah,  in  the  forty-second  chapter  of  his  prophecy. 
In  the  sixth  verse,  Jehovah  is  introduced  as  saying  thus 
to  his  son,  the  promised  Messiah  : — "  I  the  Lord  called 
thee  in  riohteousness,  and  will  hold  thine  hand,  and 
will  keep  thee,  and  will  give  theeybr  a  covenant  of  the 
^^eopZe,  for  a  light  to  the  Gentiles;  to  open  the  blind 
eyes,  to  bring  out  the  j^risoners  from  the  prison,  and 
them  that  sit  in  darkness  out  of  the  prison  house." 
Hence,  then,  the  whole  human  family  are  called  upon 
in  the  tenth  verse,  "to  sing  unto  the  Lord  a  new  song, 
and  his  praise  from  the  ends  of  the  earth,  they  that  go 
down  into  the  sea,  and  all  that  is  therein ;  the  isles,  and 
the  inhabitants  thereof."  It  will  be  admitted  that  the 
preceding  prophecy  has  reference  to  the  christian  dis- 
pensation of  grace,  the  new  song  must  therefore  refer 
to  the  blessings  of  this  dispensation  purchased  by  the 
blood  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  as  "the  Mediator  of  the 
better  covenant,"  and  "the  only  Mediator  between  God 
and  Man." 

And  it  is  worthy  of  jDarticular  notice,  that  the  four 
songs  of  praise  which  John  tells  us  he  heard  sung  in 
the  church  on  different  memorable  occasions,  Jesus 
as  "the  Lamb  of  God  who  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the 
world,"  is  the  subject  or  burthen  of  them  all.  And  it 
was  with  no  small  surprise,  that  we  heard  Dr.  P. 
assert,    "that  the  subject  matter  of  these  songs  was 


PRECEDENTS.  45 

taken  neither  from  the  Old  Testament,  nor  from  the 
New,  but  the  songs  themselves  were  given  to  the 
church  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  are  a  part  of  the  sacred 
volume."  They  are  so  ;  but  what  is  the  fact  in  the 
case,  or  the  history  of  those  songs.  '  John  tells  us  ex- 
pressly that  he  heard  them  sung  in  heaven,  or  the 
church.  But  where  did  the  church  get  the  subject- 
matter  of  them  ?  In  the  word  of  God  ;  but  especially 
from  those  passages. in  the  New  Testament  which  rep- 
resent Christ  as  "  redeeming  his  people  with  his  own 
blood,  as  of  a  Lamb  without  blemish,  and  without 
spot."  These  songs,  then,  were  divine  in  their  ori- 
gin, or  the  subject-matter  of  them  was  taken  from  the 
word  of  God,  and  the  Spirit  of  God,  who  is  the  author 
of  that  word,  recognised  them  as  his  own,  and  led  John 
to  incorporate  them  in  the  book  of  the  ','  Revelation," 
for  our  instruction  and  direction  in  the  case.  And 
viewed  and  traced  as  they  may  be,  they  are  scriptural 
precedents  for  taking  our  songs  of  praise  to  God  from 
any  portions  of  the  Old  or  New  Testaments  that  are 
suited  to  that  part  of  divine  worship. 

And  here  we  would  observe,  that  as  we  view^  the 
subject,  the  preceding  songs  are  not  to  be  considered 
as  containing  all  that  would  be  sung  on  the  memora- 
ble occasions  alluded  to,  but  as  epitomes  of  the  sub- 
ject matter  of  the  songs  that  would  be  composed  from 
the  sacred  word,  when  those  memorable  dispensations 
of  a  gracious  providence  would  take  place,  in  behalf 
of  the  church.  What  the  songs  were  which  were  sung 
on  the  occasion  of  the  merciful  deliverance  of  the 
church  from  fiery  persecution  in  the  days  of  Constan- 
tine  the  Great,  we  do  not  know,  as  they  have  perished 
in  the  course  of  time  ;  but  the  28th,  29th  and  65th 
hymns  of  the  1st  book  of  the  much  abused  and  slan- 
dered Dr.  Watts,  are  well  suited  to  the  occasion  of 
the  second  and  third  songs,  when  the  enemies  of  the 
protestant  church  were  incapacitated  from  persecuting 
her  for  the  time  to  come,  by  the  pouring  out  of  the 


46  PSALMODY. 

vials  of  the  righteous  wrath  of  God  upon  them.  But 
this  is  not  all ;  but  the  singing  of  these  and  of  similar 
songs  in  the  Protestant  church  is  a  proof  that  the 
prophecy  has  been  fulfilled,  whereas,  if  the  church 
had  confined  herself  to  the  book  of  Psalms  to  the 
present  day,  there  could  not  have  been  any  such  proof, 
as  there  is  no  Psalm  in  all  the  collection  that  can  with 
propriety  be  applied  to  that  remarkable  dis^^ensation 
of  providence.  This,  we  think,  is  a  matter  worthy  of 
serious  consideration  to  all  the  advocates  of  an  ex- 
clusive Psalmody. 

To  conclude,  we  have  now,  as  we  think,  given 
both  precept  and  precedent  for  the  use  of  hymns  and 
spiritual  songs  in  the  worship  of  God.  And  what  now 
has  our  opponent  given  in  support  of  the  proposition 
with  which  he  commenced  this  discussion — "That  it 
is  the  will  of  God,  that  the  sacred  songs  contained  in 
the  book  of  Psalms  be  sung  in  his  worshijD,  both  pub- 
lic and  private,  to  the  end  of  time,  and  that  we  have 
no  authority  to  use  any  other."  We  repeat  it — "  not 
a  single  iota,"  although  we  have  twice  distinctly  call- 
ed upon  him  to  do  so,  assuring  him  at  the  same  time, 
that  one  clear  Scriptural  proof — one,  "Thus  saith  the 
Lord,"  would  settle  the  point,  and  put  an  end  to  the 
controversy  at  once.  In  our  second  call  we  expressly 
told  him  that  we  expected  this  proof  in  full  in  his  4th 
Number.  That  Number  has  appeared  after  a  lapse  of 
two  months,  but  no  proof,  nor  the  least  hint  on  the 
subject.  His  conduct  in  this  case,  is  somewhat  mys- 
terious, and  not  easily  accounted  for.  For  it  is  not 
to  be  supposed  that  he  would  begin  the  assault  so 
fiercely  as  he  did  without  believing  that  he  could  not 
only  defeat  his  opponent,  but  victoriously  prove  the 
truth  of  that  system  of  Psalmody  which  he  has  em- 
braced. He  cannot  but  be  aware  that  his  character 
as  a  man  of  letters  and  Professor  of  theology  must 
suffer  in  public  estimation  by  such  conduct,  and  that 
it  will  be  suspected  that  he  has  no  j^roof  that  will  stand 


MR.    HEMPHILL.  47 

the  ordeal  of  public  inspection,  and  critical  examina- 
tion. He  i3  not  so  manly  in  this  respect,  as  is  his 
brother  in  the  Gospel,  Mr.  Hemphill  of  South  Caro- 
lina, who  has  printed  a  sermon  on  Psalmody,  and 
either  by  himself  or  by  some  of  his  friends,  sent  us  a 
copy  for  our  "special  benefit,"  or  for  "converting  us 
from  the  error  of  our  ways."  In  that  sermon  IMr.  H. 
adduces  what  he  thinks  is  proof  for  an  exclusive 
Psalmody,  and  which  we  purpose  to  examine,  if  health 
permits,  and  give  the  public  the  result  of  our  exami- 
nation in  our  next  number.  We  close  by  calling  upon 
Dr.  Pressly  a  third  time  for  the  proof  of  the  above 
proposition. 


NO.  VI. 

Reply  to  Mr.  Hemphill. — As  ice  use  our  own  laiiguas^c 
in  iirayer,  so  may  ice  in  praise. 

As  intimated  in  our  last  number,  since  we  com- 
menced our  defence  of  an  evangelical  Psalmody, 
against  the  attack  of  Dr.  Pressly,  a  sermon  by  the 
Rev.  W.  R.  Hemphill,  of  vSouth  Carolina,  has  been 
sent  us  by  mail,  either  by  himself,  or  by  some  of  his 
friends,  for  which  we  return  due  thanks,  and  a  few 
strictures  on  that  sermon  will  be  the  subject  of  this 
number. 

Mr.  Hemphill,  is  a  minister  of  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Church,  as  is  Dr.  Pressly,  and  the  sermon 
was  published  at  the  request  of  the  Synod  of  the  As- 
sociate Reformed  Church  of  the  Carolinas,  before 
whom  it  was  preached  in  August  last.  Although  this 
sermon  contains  twenty-eight  pages,  more  than  the 
one  half  of  it,  is  filled  with  irrelevant  declamation, 


43  PSALMODY. 

bitter  denunciations  of  what  he  calls  human  composi- 
tions in  the  worship  of  God — we  wonder  what  the 
sermon  itself  w  as — and  an  unj^rofitable  comparison  of 
Rouse's  and  Watt's  version  of  the  Psalms.  The  prin- 
cipal proposition  which  he  undertakes  to  defend  is, 
"  That  no  other  songs  of  praise  should  be  used  in  the 
worship  of  God,  but  those  which  are  known  in  the 
scriptures  as  the  Psalms  of  David."   p.  4. 

The  first  argument  which  he  offers  in  support  of 
this  proposition,  is — "that  these  inspired  songs  were 
not  intended  merely  for  the  Old  Testament  church, 
but  are  likewise  fitted  and  designed  for  the  new^  econ- 
omy." And,  as  a  proof  of  this  he  adduces  Psalm 
96  :  1,  where  "  all  the  earth  is  called  upon  to  sing 
unto  the  Lord  a  new  song."  To  this  he  adds.  Psalm 
98  :  4  ;  100  :  2  ;  113  :  3  ;  and  then  asks — "  Were 
the  Jews  to  be  the  only  people  who  should  sing  these 
sacred  hymns  ;  but  the  declaration  is  *  from  the  rising 
of  the  sun  to  the  going  down  of  the  same,  the  Lord's 
name  is  to  be  praised.'  "  We  readily  answer,  no  ; 
and  say  farther,  that  many  of  them  are  highly  suited 
to  every  dispensation  of  grace,  and  have  accordingly 
been  sung  and  will  be  sung  in  the  church  until  time 
shall  be  no  more.  But  why  not  all  ?  Because  some 
of  them,  and  parts  of  others,  have  indubitable  reference 
to  the  Jewish  dispensation,  and  which  Paul,  in  Col. 
2  :  14,  styles  "a  hand  writing  of  ordinances  that  was 
against  us,  and  contrary  to  us,"  and  then  affirms, — 
"that  Christ  took  it  out  of  the  way,  naihng  it  to  his 
cross."  This  is  a  plain,  positive,  and  to  the  advocates 
of  an  exclusive  Psalmody,  a  perplexing  affirmation; 
and  to  evade  its  force,  Mr.  H.  shifts  the  question,  by 
asking — "  Were  David's  Psalms  taken  out  of  the  way 
and  nailed  to  the  cross."  No,  but  all  the  Levitical 
ritual,  and  all  the  sacrifices  and  offerings  of  that  dis- 
pensation were  taken  away  ;  and  consequently  every 
Psalm  and  portion  of  a  Psalm,  that  refers  to  these  is 
not  suited  to  the  christian  dispensation,  unless  the  anti- 


SERMON.  49 

typical  language  and  meaning  is  affixed  by  the  singer  ; 
but  that  would  be  doing  what  Dr.  Watts  has  done,  and, 
moreover,  would  be  singing  what  is  called  "  human 
composure  in  the  worship  of  God."  And  who  may 
not  see  that  to  sing  them  otherwise,  or  to  sing  them 
literally  is,  so  far,  a  virtual  renunciation  of  Christianity, 
and  returning  to  Judaism.  A  judicious  explanation 
of  such  Psalms  may  relieve  somewhat  in  this  case,  and 
direct  the  attentive  w^orshipper  "  to  sing  with  the  un- 
derstanding" and  "in  spirit  and  in  truth."  How  far 
this  may  be  the  case  with  Mr.  H's  hearers  we  -do  not 
know,  but  Dr.  Pressly  tells  us,  that  his  hearers  do  not 
sing  his  explanations  at  all,  or  affix  the  spiritual  mean- 
ing to  the  typical  word.  If  so,  then  they  are,  so  far, 
Judaizers,  and  a  serious  practical  perusal  of  the  third 
chapter  of  Paul's  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  might  be 
profitable  to  them.  "  But  w^e  are  persuaded  better 
things  of  them,  and  things  that  accompany  salvation 
though  we  thus  speak." 

Mr.  Hemphill's  second  argument  for  the  exclusive 
use  of  the  book  of  Psalms  in  the  praises  of  God,  "  is 
drawn  from  the  example  of  Christ  and  his  apostles." 
And  as  a  proof  of  this,  he  says,  "  that  Christ  had  par- 
taken of  the  passover  for  a  number  of  years,  and  joined 
with  the  Jews  in  singing  the  Hallel,  the  hymn  they 
usually  sung  at  the  close  of  the  Passover  supper,  con- 
sisting of  six  Psalms,  beginning  with  the  113th,  and 
will  it  be  pretended,  that  when  the  last  passover  w^as 
celebrated,  and  the  Lord's  supper  instituted  in  its  stead, 
the  blessed  Saviour  laid  aside  his  own  divine  hymns 
composed  by  David,  and  chose  some  hymn  of  human 
composition  with  which  to  close  this  interesting  cele- 
bration." p.  9. 

This  argument  has  been  advanced  by  every  writer 
which  we  have  seen  on  Mr.  H's  side  of  the  question  ; 
and  yet  we  have  not  seen  a  single  iota  of  scripture 
proof,  that  what  is  called  the  Hallel,  or  any  other 
spiritual  song,  was  sung  by  the  Jews  at  the  celebration 
5 


50  PSALMODY. 

of  the  Passover  in  the  days  of  Christ,  or  at  any  other 
time  prior  to  that  era.  Certain  it  is,  that  there  is  not 
the  least  hint  in  the  12th  chapter  of  Exodus,  where  we 
have  a  detailed  account  how  that  ordinance  was  to  be 
observed,  that  a  song  of  any  kind  was  to  be  sung  on 
the  occasion.  Nor  is  there  the  least  hint  that  this  was 
the  case  at  the  great  passovers  observed  in  the  days  of 
Hezekiah  and  Josiah,  kings  of  Judah ;  and  if  the 
practice  has  been  introduced  by  the  Jews,  at  their 
pas'sovers  since  the  days  of  Christ,  our  opponents  are 
very  welcome  to  all  the  use  they  can  make  of  the 
fact  as  an  argument  in  this  controversy. 

Besides,  that  the  Psalms  mentioned  by  Mr.  Hemp- 
hill were  sung  at  the  Passover,  is  improbable  in  the 
nature  of  things.  That  ordinance  was  instituted  in 
commemoration  of  the  gracious  deliverance  of  the 
children  of  the  Israelites,  when  the  sword  of  the  des- 
troying angel  slew  the  first  born  in  every  family  in 
the  land  of  Egypt.  If  a  Psalm  or  song  was  sung  at 
that  sacred  feast,  one  would  think,  that  it  would  have 
reference  to  that  distinguished  deliverance.  There  is, 
indeed,  reference  to  it  in  the  seventy-eighth  and  other 
Psalms,  but  there  is  not  the  least  allusion  to  it  in  the 
six  Psalms  mentioned  by  our  author.  There  is  indeed 
allusion  in  the  114th  to  the  deliverance  of  the  children 
of  Israel  from  Pharaoh  and  his  host  at  the  Red  sea, 
and  their  passage  through  Jordan  ;  but  we  need 
scarcely  say,  that  these  were  deliverances  altogether 
distinct  from  that  on  account  of  which  the  passover 
was  instituted. 

And  to  this  we  would  add,  that  we  are  told  that 
after  Christ  and  his  disciples  had  partaken  of  the  or- 
dinance of  the  supper  which  was  instituted  immediately 
after  the  celebration  of  the  j^assover,  and  which  was 
to  take  its  place,  they  '•^  sung  a  liymn^  and  went  out 
into  the  mount  of  Olives  ;"  but  according  to  our  oppo- 
nents no  less  than  six  Psalms  were  sung  on  occasion 
of  the  celebration  of  the  passover.     And  admitting  to 


SERMON.  51 

our  opponents  that  the  Hallel  was  adapted  to  the 
ordinance  of  the  passover,  and  that  the  Jews  sung  it 
on  that  occasion,  the  question  then  will  be,  which  is 
the  most  probable — that  they  would  sing  a  song 
appropriate  only  to  an  ordinance  then  abolished,  or  a 
song  suited  to  the  character  and  design  of  an  ordinance 
expressly  commemorative  of  the  Redeemer's  sufferings 
shortly  to  take  place;  more  especially  when  there  is 
not  the  least  allusion  to  those  sufferings,  in  what  is 
called  the  Hallel  or  Hlllcl.  We  think  that  the  candid 
reader  will  .  say,  that  the  probability  is  b^^  far  the 
stronger  on  the  latter  side  of  the  question,  and  that 
Christ  composed  the  hymn,  although  infinite  wisdom 
did  not  see  it  best,  that  it  should  be  recorded  among 
his  other  w^ords  and  deeds. 

And  to  all  this  may  be  subjoined — that  admitting 
that  the  Jews  sung  what  is  called  the  Hallel  at  the 
passover,  and^dmitting  that  it  was  sung  by  Christ  and 
his  disciples  at  the  institution  of  the  supper,  what  would 
it  amount  to,  and  what  would  it  prove?  Would  it 
prove,  that  the  book  of  Psalms  was  given  as  an  exclu- 
sive system  of  Psalmody,  to  the  end  of  time?  No — it 
would  prove  only  that  Christ  honored  and  attended 
upon  all  the  institutions  of  the  Jewish  dispensation 
under  which  he  lived ;  for  let  it  be  remembered,  that 
the  Christian  dispensation  did  not  commence  until 
after  his  death.  That  any  person  should  adduce  the 
Hallel,  if  even  sung,  as  a  proof  of  an  exclusive  system 
of  Psalmody,  has  been  always  surprising  to  ourselves. 

And  here  we  cannot,  and  should  not  pass  over,  Mr. 
Hemphill's  mistaken  views  of  the  character  of  the 
hymns  and  spiritual  songs  for  which  we  contend. 
Having  told  us  in  the  ninth  page,  that  the  apostles  did 
not  make  any  hymns,  "either  on  the  incarnation,  the 
crucifixion,  or  the  ascension  of  the  Lord  of  glory;" 
he  then  says  in  the  following  page,  "  that  the  humble 
fishermen  of  Galilee  had  not  presumption  enough  to 
obtrude  their  own  uninsjnred  effusions  on  the  church, 


52  PSALMODY. 

as  something  better  adapted  to  her  state  and  circum- 
stances, than  the  songs  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  This  is 
perfectly  akin  to  what  Mr.  Reid  has  said  on  the  same 
subject,  as  noticed  in  our  "Inquiry,"  p.  210.  "  That 
it,  at  least,  is  bordering  on  blasphemy,  when  a  man 
without  any  authority  from  God,  and  merely  from  his 
own  lieart,  composes  a  religious  song,  calls  it  the  song 
of  the  Lamb,  and  gives  it  to  the  churches  to  sing  in  the 
j3raises  of  God." 

Here,  it  is  boldly  affirmed  by  both  of  these  rever- 
end authors,  that  every  hymn,  however  agreeable  it 
may  be  to  the  word  of  God,  and  may  contain  some 
of  the  most  precious  doctrines,  precej^ts  or  promises 
of  that  Word,  are  but  the  "  effusions  of  the  hnmvin 
heart,^^  because  the  arrangers  of  those  doctrines,  pre- 
cepts or  promises,  were  uninspired  men.  Does  it  not 
follow  by  legitimate  consequence  from  this  doctrine, 
that  all  preaching  and  praying,  however  scriptural  and 
agreeable  to  the  divine  word,  if  arranged  or  uttered 
by  uninspired  men,  are  to  be  considered  only  as  the 
effusions  of  the  heart,  that  fountain  of  error  and 
moral  pollution.  Matt.  15  :  19.  We  are  aware  that  it 
is  said,  that  although  we  may  pray  in  our  own  words, 
and  a^  arranged  by  ourselves,  yet  we  may  not  praise 
but  in  the  words  of  the  scriptures,  and  as  arranged  by 
the  Holy  Ghost.  How  that  is,  w^e  will  shortly  see, 
and  admitting  what  our  opponents  say  in  respect  to 
praying  to  be  true,  how  will  the  objection  in  regard  to 
preaching  be  removed,  for  preaching  is  a  divine  ordi- 
nance, as  well  as  praising.  We  have  not  seen  any- 
thing as  yet  on  that  point,  and  the  advocates  of  an 
exclusive  Psalmody  are  now  requested  to  tell  us  why 
it  is  right  for  an  uninspired  man  to  compose  or  arrange 
and  preach  an  evangelical  sermon  from  the  word  of 
God,  but  wrong  to  arrange  a  spiritual  song  from  that 
same  word. 

Some  of  our  readers  may  be  now  ready  to  ask, 
what  reasons  have  been  assigned  why  a  portion  of  the 


SERMON.  53 

scriptures,  when  versified  by  an  uninspired  man,  be- 
comes as  worthless  and  wicked  a  thing  as  the  cffiisio?is 
of  the  human  heart,  from  which  nothing  good  can 
come  ;  and  how  is  the  deteriorating  and  contaminating 
effect  produced,  and  by  what  means  and  process  ? 
We  have  never  heard  any  reason  assigned  for  this 
strange  transformation,  but  the  'say  so'of  the  advocates 
of  an  exclusive  Psalmody.  They  may  be  ready  to  ask 
farther,  how  the  translation  of  the  Bible  into  English, 
by  men  not  inspired,  escaped  the  deteriorating  trans- 
formation, for  it  has  a  number  of  supplementary  words 
which  are  surely  "  human  composure  "  as  far  as  they 
go  ;  and  especially,  how  did  the  versification  of  the 
book  of  Psalms  by  Rouse  escape,  for  it  has  surely  a 
great  number  of  supplementary  words,  and  the  word 
^'■perfect,''''  in  the  first  line  of  the,  first  Psalm  is  not  only 
supplementary,  but  is  not  true,  as  it  respects  this  life. 
We  confess  that  we  are  utterly  incompetent  to  account 
for  those  deteriorations,  transformations,  and  fortunate 
escapes,  and  must  refer  them  for  solution  to  the  superi- 
or knowledge  of  our  opponents  on  this  jioint.  But 
although  w^e  cannot  account  for,  nor  reconcile  the 
foregoing  inconsistencies,  yet  w^e  think  we  have  seen 
how  they  unwarily  fell  into  such  absurdities.  First, 
by  supposing,  or  taking  for  granted,  then  repeatedly 
and  warmly  affirming,  and  finally  believing,  that  the 
composers  of  spiritual  songs  containing  some  impor- 
tant doctrines  of  the  gospel,  were  the  authors  of  them, 
whereas  they  only  arranged  in  verse  those  truths  of 
which  the  Holy  Ghost,  speaking  in  the  scriptures,  is 
the  author.  For  it  is  no  uncommon  thing  for  men  of  a 
certain  temperament  firmly  to  believe,  and  ardently  to 
defend,  what  they  at  first  received  as  the  most  probable 
supposition.  And  if  this  is  not  satisfactory,  the  whole 
can  be  accounted  for  from  the  almost  insurmountable 
influence  of  the  prejudice  of  education. 

Our  author's  third  proof,  "  that  the  Psalms  of  David 
are  to  be  used  in  the  New  Testament  church  in  the 
5* 


54  PSALMODY. 

praises  of  God,  is  drawn  from  the  positive  command  of 
Paul  and  James  to  that  effect.  Paul  says  in  the  text, 
"let  the  word  of  Christ  dwell  in  you  richly  in  all  wisdom 
teaching  and  admonishing  one  another  in  psalms,  and 
hymns,  and  spiritual  songs,  singing  with  grace  in  your 
hearts  to  the  Lord."  And  James  says,  "  is  any  man 
merry  let  him  sing  psalms." 

Now,  we  have  said  repeatedly  in  this  discussion, 
that  the  book  of  Psalms  was  perfectly  suited  to  the 
Psalmody  of  the  church,  in  the  former,  and  much  of 
it  to  the  present  dispensation  of  grace.  And  not  only 
so,  but  that  the  true  believer  will  find  in  it,  as  much, 
if  not  more,  appropriate  to  his  case,  as  in  any  other 
part  of  the  sacred  volume:  and  we  would  say  to  him, 
"  is  any  man  merry,  let  him  sing  Psalms."  Here, 
we  have  no  difference  with  the  apostle  James,  nor 
with  Mr.  Hemphill  :  but  we  say,  that  we  differ  with 
the  latter — toto  ccelo — with  respect  to  his  interpreta- 
tions of  Col.  3:  16.  As  we  have  given  our  views  in 
full  on  that  passage  in  the  fourth  number  of  our  reply 
to  Dr.  Pressly,  we  refer  the  reader  to  it  as  containing 
an  answer  equally  to  Mr.  Hemphill,  and  Dr.  Pressly. 
Dr.  Pressly  understands  the  phrase — "  The  word  of 
Christ" — in  that  passage,  in  the  same  sense  as  the 
phrase,  "The  word  of  God,"  or  as  comprehending 
the  Old,  as  well  as  the  New  Testament,  while  we  think 
from  the  peculiarity  of  the  phrase  itself,  and  other 
reasons  assigned  in  the  reply,  it  is  to  be  understood  in 
that  place,  as  having  special  reference  to  the  New 
Testament  scriptures.  IMr.  Hemphill,  however,  un- 
derstands the  phrase  as  having  reference  to  the  book 
of  Psalms  only.  p.  11.  He  does  not  assign  any  reason 
for  such  an  interpretation  of  the  phrase,  but  his  system 
of  Psalmody  imperiously  demands  such  a  strange 
restriction.  But  the  restriction  is  unsupported  and 
untenable;  and  Dr.  Pressly's  interpretation  of  the 
phrase  is  of  no  use  to  him  in  this  controversy.  For, 
if  we  understand  that  phrase  as  embracing  both  the 


Hemphill's   sermon.  55 

Old  and  New  Testaments,  it  proves  all  that  we  ever 
contended  for  on  this  subject.  It  proves  that  we  are 
to  take  our  songs  of  praise  to  God  from  the  New,  as 
well  as  from  the  Old  Testament,  for  the  apostle  enjoins 
on  the  church  at  Colosse,  that  from  the  word  of  Christ, 
dwelling  richly  in  them,  they  shall  teach  one  another, 
in  psalms,  and  hymns,  and  spiritual  songs.  The  reader 
will  have  observed,  that  the  system  of  Psalmody  for 
which  we  contend,  laid  us  under  no  necessity  to  un- 
derstand and  explain  the  above  phrase  as  having 
special  reference  to  the  New  Testament  scriptures,  we 
were  constrained  to  do  so  from  the  circumstances  that 
it  is  called  "The  word  of  Christ,"  and  not  "The 
word  of  God."  This  last  phrase  is  often  used  by 
the  apostle  in  his  epistles,  to  denote  both  the  Old  and 
the  New  Testaments.  And  we  think  that  it  must  have 
struck  every  reader,  that  he  must  have  had  some 
special  reason  for  altering  the  phraseology  in  this  place. 
The  duty  which  he  wished  to  enjoin  explains  the  mat- 
ter— "teaching  and  admonishing  one  another  in  psalms, 
hymns  and  spiritual  songs;"  or  taking  your  songs  of 
praise  to  God  from  the  New  Testament  as  well  as  from 
the  Old.  Besides,  the  w^ords  wdiich  immediately  follow 
"whatsoever  you  do  in  word  or  deed,  do  all  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  demand  this  exegesis  or 
explanation.  For,  as  observed  in  our  reply  to  Dr. 
Pressly,  it  is  only  in  the  New  Testament  that  we  know, 
that  Jesus  of  Nazarath  is  the  promised  Mediator,  and 
if  we  w^ill  praise  God  in  his  name,  it  must  be  in  songs 
taken  from  the  New  Testament  which  recognise  him 
as  such,  and  as  having  "once  suffered  for  sins,  the 
just  for  the  unjust  to  bring  us  to  God."  We  have  an 
example  of  this  in  the  apostle  John  which  is  worthy 
of  imitation.  When  about  to  pen  the  "  Revela- 
tion," he  wished  first  to  raise  a  song  of  praise  to  him 
whose  illuminating  influences  he  then  felt  pervading 
every  power  of  his  soul.  And  what  was  the  song  V 
This — "Unto  him  that  loved  us  and  washed  us  from 


56  PSALMODY. 

our  sins  in  his  own  blood,  and  hath  made  us  kings 
and  priests  unto  God,  and  his  father;  to  him  be  glory 
and  dominion  for  ever  and  ever,  Amen."  And  shall 
not  we  say  Amen  to  this,  by  a  similar  song  to  him, 
"who  though  he  was  rich,  yet  for  our  sakes  became 
poor,  that  we  through  his  poverty  may  be  rich."  We 
need  scarcely  say  that  such  a  song  is  only  to  be  found 
in  the  New  Testament  scriptures.  We  will  only  far- 
ther remark  on  this  subject,  that  the  reader  cannot  but 
have  observed,  that  Mr.  Hemphill's  two  first  argu- 
ments in  favor  of  an  exclusive  Psalmody  are  irrele- 
vant to  the  point  at  issue,  and  that  Col.  3 :  16,  the  text 
from  which  he  preached,  teaches  doctrine  just  the 
reverse  of  that  taught  in  the  sermon.  As  a  die,  how- 
ever tossed  and  turned,  will  always  settle  down  a 
complete  cube;  so,  the  phrase,  "  The  word  of  Christ," 
in  that  verse,  tossed  and  turned,  and  explained  as  it 
may  be,  will  still  prove,  that  we  are  to  take  our  songs 
of  praise  to  God,  from  the  New  as  well  as  the  Old 
Testament,  and  that  it  is  all  that  we  have  ever  con- 
tended for,   or  now  contend. 

There  is  nothing  more  in  Mr.  Hemphill's  sermon 
that  has  a  bearing  on  the  point  at  issue,  but  his  reply 
to  the  argument  for  using  hymns  and  spiritual  songs  in 
the  worship  of  God,  "  That  as  we  employ  our  own 
language  in  prayer,  why  not  in  praise."  His  reply 
is,  "that  the  ordinances  of  prayer  and  praise  are  alto- 
gether distinct — that  prayer  is  an  offering  up  of  our 
desires  to  God  for  things  agreeable  to  his  will ;  while 
praise  is  rendering  to  God  that  which  is  due  to  him ; 
it  is  to  extol  him  for  what  he  is  in  himself,  has  done, 
and  for  what  he  continues  to  do  in  the  works  of  crea- 
tion, providence  and  grace." 

That  prayer  and  praise  are  distinct  ordinances  in 
some  respects,  is  admitted;  but  w^hat  prevents  their 
being  occasionally  mingled  in  the  worship  of  the  same 
God  ■?  And  who  does  not  know,  that  that  form  of  pray- 
er, commonly  called  "The  Lord's  Prayer,"  closes  with 


SERMON.  57 

ascriptions  of  praise  to  the  Giver  of  all  good,  and  the 
God  of  all  grace — "  for  thine  is  the  kingdom,  and  the 
power,  and  the  glory,  for  ever,  Amen."  In  the  course 
of  his  reply,  Mr.  Hemphill  observes,  "that  we  have 
some  idea  of  what  our  wants  are,  and  that  with  hea- 
ven's promised  help  we  can  make  them  known  to  God, 
.  .  .  but  no  one  who  is  not  favored  with  a  divine 
afflatus  is  competent  to  provide  for  the  church  a  sys- 
tem of  Psalmody  setting  forth  the  praises  of  the  incom- 
prehensible Jehovah."  The  objector  seems  to  have 
forgotten  when  he  wrote  this  objection,  that  Jehovah 
has  been  graciously  pleased  to  reveal  his  own  charac- 
ter or  perfections,  with  some  of  his  works  of  provi- 
dence and  grace,  in  his  holy  word ;  and  surely  it  does 
not  require  any  special  affiatus,  or  inspiration,  to  col- 
lect and  arrange  one  or  more  of  these  into  a  song;  and 
when  sung,  it  is  singing  his  praise  in  his  own  language ; 
for  the  words,  or  -the  ideas,  which  they  represent,  are 
his  own  words  and  ideas.  Preachers  are  in  the  habit 
of  doing  this  every  day  in  their  prayers  and  sermons ; 
and  this  may  be  as  well  objected  to,  as  collecting  and 
arranging  a  spiritual  song  from  the  sacred  word,  now 
complete.  And  the  promise  of  Christ  to  the  church, 
"that  He  will  be  with  her  always  to  the  end  of  the 
world,"  is  a  security  that  there  will  always  be  in  her  a 
sufficiency  of  talent  and  knowledge  for  this  and  other 
important  purposes.  The  objection  then  in  the  close 
of  the  reply,  that  according  to  our  argument,  "every 
man  ought  to  compose  his  own  hymns,  as  employ  his 
own  language  in  prayer,  as  no  one  man  in  a  thous- 
and has  the  gift  of  poetry,"  has  no  bearing,  and  is  of 
no  force  in  this  question.  No  man  is  required  to  do 
so.  It  belongs  to  the  church  in  her  highest  judicatory, 
to  provide  a  scriptural  and  Evangelical  Psalmody,  as 
well  as  a  scriptural  Confession  of  Faith;  and  there  is 
no  more  danger  to  her  orthodoxy  and  purity  in  this, 
than  in  her  Confession  of  Faith,  or  in  the  ministrations 
of  those  whom  she  may  send  forth  to  preach  the  gospel. 


58  PSALMODY. 

Besides,  according  to  the  whole  drift  and  design  of 
the  reply,  there  should  not  have  been  any  prayers  in 
the  book  of  Psalms,  and  a  reader  not  acquainted  with 
the  book,  on  reading  the  reply,  would  naturally  con- 
clude that  there  are  none,  but  that  it  is  altogether  com- 
posed of  adorations  and  praises.  But  who  does  not 
know  that  it  abounds  with  them ;  and  not  over  a  do- 
zen, if  so  many,  Psalms  can  be  pointed  out,  that  do  not 
contain  one  or  more  petitions.  There  are  nearly  a  do- 
zen petitions  in  the  fifty-first  Psalm.  The  17th  Psalm 
is  entitled  a  prayer  of  David;  and  the  90th  Psalm  a 
prayer  of  Moses  the  man  of  God.  The  72d  Psalm 
is  titled  a  Psalm  for  Solomon,  and  concludes  thus — 
"the  prayers  of  David  the  son  of  Jesse  are  ended." 
True  indeed,  the  Psalms  abound  with  praises ;  but  do 
the  advocates  of  an  exclusive  Psalmody  pass  over  the 
prayers,  and  sing  only  the  praises  '?  They  should  do 
so  in  consistency  with  their  system  of  Psalmody,  and 
never  sing  the  17th,  90th  or  72d  Psalms  at  all.  But 
they  sing  them,  and  in  doing  so,  act  as  inconsistently 
as  when  they  declaim  against  what  they  call  "  human 
composure,"  and  at  the  same  time  explain  the 
Psalm  to  their  hearers,  that  they  may  sing  with  the 
understanding ;  for  to  sing  some  of  the  psalms  literal- 
ly, or  to  affix  the  literal  idea  to  the  words,  would  be 
rank  Judaism. 

The  fact  is,  that  although  preaching,  praying,  and 
praising  are  distinct  ordinances,  yet  the  doctrines  which 
are  to  be  preached,  and  expressions  of  prayer  and 
praise,  are  occasionally  so  intermingled  in  the  scrip- 
tures, as  to  produce  the  best  effect  on  the  reader  or 
hearer,  reminding  him,  at  the  same  time,  of  the  vari- 
ous duties  which  he  owes  to  God.  This  is  the  case 
especially,  with  prayers  and  praise  in  the  book  of 
Psalms ;  and  the  attempt  to  separate  them,  as  in  no 
wise  connected,  for  the  purpose  of  supporting  an  ex- 
clusive system  of  Psalmody,  not  only  does  violence  to 
the  sacred  word,  but  indicates  a  material  defect  in  the 


pressly's  evasion  of  proof.      59 

system  itself.  And  we  have  been  surprised  that  the 
advocates  of  this  system  do  not  see,  that  the  mixture 
of  praise  and.prayer  in  many  of  the  Psalms,  complete- 
ly dissipates  their  objection  to  our  argument — "that 
as  we  use  our  own  language  in  prayer,  so  may  we  in 
praise."  We  think  we  may  now  safely  say,  that  Mr. 
Hemphill  has  not  answered  our  argument ;  and  we 
will  venture  to  say  more — that  we  consider  it  unan- 
swerable. 


NO.  VII. 

Typical    Psalm  —  Misi'epresentation     Confirmed  ■ — 
Preacher. 

Our  readers  will  remember  that  in  the  close  of  our 
fifth  number,  we  called  upon  Dr.  Pressly,  our  re- 
viewer, for  a  third  time,  for  the  proof  of  his  main 
position  in  this  controversy — that  no  portion  of  the 
scriptures  is  to  be  used  in  the  praises  of  God  but  the 
book  of  Psalms,  assuring  him  at  the  same  time,  that 
one  clear  scriptural  proof  would  satisfy  us,  and  put  an 
end  to  the  controversy  at  once.  He  has  published 
his  fifth  number  since  that  time,  but  not  one  iota  of 
proof,  nor  even  an  allusion  to  the  important  point,  is 
to  be  seen.  This  is  really  very  strange  in  a  man  who 
tells  us  in  the  first  number  of  his  "Preacher,"  which 
we  have  accidentally  seen,  that  he  was  selected  by  his 
brethren  as  the  champion  in  the  pending  controversy.* 
And  indeed  it  would  seem  to  us,  that  some  of  his 
brethren  themselves  will  be  under  the  necessity  of 
stejDping  forward  and  producing  the  required  proof. 
They  cannot  but  be  sensible  that  nothing  less  than  this 
will  satisfy  the  public  in  this  stage  of  the  discussion  ; 


60  PSALMODY. 

and  if  they  do  not,  it  will  be  justly  inferred  that  they 
are  not  in  possession  of  any  thing  that  they  dare 
offer  to  a  discerning  public,  notwithstanding  the 
incessant  clamor  which  they  have  kept  up  on  the  sub- 
ject of  Psalmody  for  many  years  past.  Why  keep 
back  what  would  put  an  end  to  the  controversy  at 
once,  and  restore  peace  to  all  the  branches  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  long  distracted  on  this  subject? 

Having  made  these  necessary  remarks  on, the  un- 
accountable conduct  of  our  reviewer  on  the  preceding 
case  ;  we  will  now  examine  this  fifth  number  itself. 
And,  indeed,  this  is  a  somewhat  difficult  task,  not 
because  of  the  strength  of  the  argument,  but  from  its 
miscellaneous  character,  much  of  w^hich  has  no  rela- 
tion to  the  main  question,  and  the  controversy  on  the 
part  of  our  opponent  is  now  descending  into  trifling 
cavils,  and  a  war  of  words. 

In  the  first  place  he  endeavors  to  fix  on  us  a  second 
charge  of  heterodoxy,  bordering  on  infidelity.  And 
although  he  had  promised  in  his  first  number,  that  the 
discussion  on  his  part  should  be  confined  to  the  merits 
of  the  question,  and  not  to  the  relative  merits  or  de- 
merits of  difierent  versions  of  the  Psalms  ;  yet  he 
introduces  Watts'  version  of  the  Psalms,  and  charges 
the  Doctor  and  his  version  as  laying  the  foundation  of 
a  principle  that  is  "  hostile  to  the  inspiration  of  the 
scriptures,"  and  which  he  says  we  have  embraced. 
And  what  now  have  we  said,  that  involves  this  wicked 
principle  ?  This,  that  we  have  said  in  our  "  Inquiry," 
*'  that  when  we  say,  that  all  that  is  typical  and  local 
in  the  Psalms  is  not  suited  to  gospel  worship  and 
praise,  we  yet  cheerfully  and  unhesitatingly  say,  that 
•  whatever  is  devotional  or  preceptive  is  highly  suited 
to  the  praises  of  God."  And  what  now  is  there  in 
tlie  preceding  opinion  that  is  hostile  to  the  inspiration 
of  the  scriptures?  "  This,"  says  our  reviewer,  "the 
Psalms  are  the  productions  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  They 
ar6  denominated  by   the   divine  author,    Psalms    or 


BEGGIXG    THE    QUESTION.  61 

songs  of  praise.  In  them  the  praises  of  God  are  set 
forth  in  such  a  manner  as  seemed  proper  to  infinite 
wisdom.  And  shall  man  undertake  to  sit  in  judgment 
upon  those  divine  hymns  of  praise,  and  say  that  some 
parts  of  them  are  not  suited  to  the  purpose  of  praising 
God  under  the  gospel  dispensation." 

The  reader  has  now  before  him  the  premises  from 
our  "  Inquiry,"  and  the  conclusion  drawn  by  our  op- 
ponent that  they  involve  in  them  a  principle  "hostile 
to  the  inspiration  of  the  scriptures."  It  may  be  that 
some  of  our  readers  may  be  ready  to  -say  that  they  do 
not  see  how  our  reviewer,  who  it  is  presumed  is  a 
logician,  could  draw  such  a  conclusion  from  the  prem- 
ises. He  drew  it  in  this  way.  Instead  of  proving, 
although  thrice  called  upon  for  the  purpose,  that  the 
book  of  Psalms  is  only  to  be  used  in  the  praises  of 
God,  he  takes  it  for  granted,  and  in  all  he  has  pub- 
lished on  the  subject,  argues  from  this  assumed  prin- 
ciple. But  as  that  is  the  point  in  dispute,  and  we  are 
of  a  contrary  opinion  respecting  Jehovah's  design  in 
giving  us  the  book  of  Psalms,  we  may  say  that  some 
of  the  Psalms,  those  especially  that  speak  of  Jewish 
rites  and  sacrifices,  are  Not  suited  to  the  worship  of 
the  Christian  Church,  without  being  charged  with 
hostility  to  the  inspiration  of  the  scriptures.  And  we 
would  now  ask  any  judicious  and  unprejudiced  reader 
— we  would  almost  venture  to  ask  Dr.  Pressly  him- 
self, if  the  following  portion  of  the  66th  Psalm,  and 
to  which  he  alludes  in  this  number,  is  suited  to  the 
praises  of  the  Christian  Church,  unless  the  anti-typical 
meaning  is  afiixed  to  the  typical  words  :  "I  will  go 
into  thy  house  with  hurnt  offerings.  I  will  ofi'er  unto 
thee  hurnt  sacrifices  with  fatllngs,  with  the  incense  of 
rams  :  I  will  offer  bullocks  and  goats."  It  was  per- 
fectly right  In  a  Jew  to  say  and  do  so  ;  but  would  it 
not  be  rank  Judaism  in  a  professing  Christian  to  say 
so,  without  the  qualification  mentioned  above.  As 
said  in  a  former  number,  a  judicious  explanation  of 
6 


62  PSALMODY. 

sucli  passages  in  the  Psalms,  and  the  officiating  min- 
ister opening  up  to  the  unlearned  worshipper  the 
spiritual  meaning  of  the  Old  Testament  types,  and 
telling  them  to  sing  that  meaning,  may  enable  such  a 
worshipper  "  to  sing  with  the  understanding,  and  to 
worship  God  in  spirit  and  in  truth."  But  alas  !  for 
Dr.  Pressly's  hearers,  if  what  he  says  of  them  is  true, 
that  they  do  not  sing  his  explanations,  but  sing  such 
Psalms  "  literally"  as  they  are. 

We  turn  to  another  portion  of  another  Psalm,  also 
adduced  by  himself,  and  which  has  reference  to  the 
sanctification  of  the  sinner,  as  the  one  now  examined 
has  to  his  justification  before  God.  The  Psalm  al- 
luded-to  is  the  51st  Psalm,  7th  and  19th  verses,  as 
conjoined  by  our  reviewer.  Purge  me  with  hyssop, 
and  I  shall  be  clean  ;  wash  me,  and  I  shall  be  whiter 
than  snow."  "  Then  shalt  thou  be  pleased  with  the 
sacrifices  of  righteousness  with  whole  burnt  ofi'erings  : 
then  shall  they  offer  bullocks  on  thine  altar."  Our 
reviewer  then  adds,  "  Here  we  have  typical  language 
in  which  is  a  direct  reference  to  the  rites  and  sacri- 
fices of  the  law.  And  will  any  one  say  that  these 
verses  are  not  suited  to  gospel  worship  and  praise." 
We  boldly  say  so  ;  unless  the  worshipper  understands 
wdiat  w^as  meant  by  sprinkling  a  leprous  person  with  a 
bunch  of  hyssop  dipj^ed  in  the  blood  of  a  bird  killed 
in  an  earthen  vessel,  over  running  water.  Lev.  14  :  3, 
7.  It  is  evident  from  the  phraseology,  "  purge  me 
with  hyssop,  and  I  shall  be  clean,"  that  the  Psalmist 
had  reference  to  this  rite  as  typical  of  the  way  in 
which  sinners  are  cleansed  from  the  leprosy  sin,  by, 
the  almighty  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God  on  their 
hearts.  And  we  would  now  ask  in  the  language  of 
our  reviewer,  "  will  any  one  presume  to  say,"  that 
the  words  purge  rae  with  hyssop,  and  I  shall  be  clean 
are  as  well  calculated  to  teach  us  how  the  leprosy  of 
sin  is  expelled  from  our  nature,  as  what  Christ  says 
on  the  subject,   '*  It  is  the  Spirit  that  quickeneth,  the 


TYPICAL    PSALMS.  63 

flesh  profiteth  nothing."  Or  what  Paul  says  to  be- 
lievers, "  but  ye  are  washed,  but  ye  are  sanctified, 
but  ye  are  justified  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus, 
and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God;"  if  those  or  similar 
passages  were  thrown  into  the  form  of  a  hymn  or 
spiritual  song.  And  we  appeal  to  any  reader  of  good 
common  sense  if  the  preceding  portions  of  the  66th 
and  the  51st  psalms,  the  one  relating  to  the  justifica- 
tion of  the  sinner,  and  the  other  to  his  sanctification, 
can  possibly  be  sung  to  edification  and  divine  accept- 
ance, without  a  judicious  explanation,  and  the  unlearn- 
ed worshipper  remembers,  and  sings  those  explana- 
tions. 

There  are  a  couple  of  sentences  near  the  close  ap- 
pertaining to  the  point  in  hand,  and  which  we  have 
read  with  no  small  degree  of  astonishment,  as  coming 
from  a  Professor  of  Theology  in  a  Presbyterian 
church.  These  sentences  are  as  follows  :  "  Typical 
expressions  are  doubtless  frequently  employed  in  the 
divine  songs,  but  the  Psalms  themselves  are  not  typi- 
cal. Language  abounds  in  the  book  of  Psalms  which 
conveys  an  allusion  to  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the 
law,  but  will  any  one  say,  that  any  of  the  Psalms  them- 
selves are  among  the  shadows  of  good  things  to  come." 
Yes,  we  again  say  boldly,  that  the  150th  Psalm,  for 
instance,  is  altogether  typical,  and  portions  of  others 
are  so,  and  therefore,  "  the  shadows  of  good  things  to 
come."  The  Apostle  Paul  is  our  authority  for  believ- 
ing and  saying  so.  Li  Heb.  10  :  1,  he  expressly  says: 
"  For  the  law  or  the  Jewish  ritual — having  a  shadow 
of  good  things  to  come,  and  not  the  very  image  of  the 
things,  can  never  with  those  sacrifices  which  they  offer- 
ed year  by  year  continually  make  the  comers  thereunto 
perfect."  Here  the  sacrifices  of  the  Jewish  ritual  are 
expressly  called  "  the  shadow  of  good  things  to 
come;"  and  in  his  epistle  to  the  church  at  Golosse, 
alluding  to  the  whole  of  that  ritual,  he  calls  it  "  a 
hand-writing  of  ordinances  that  was  against  us,  and 


64  PSALMODY. 

contrary  to  us,"  and  then  affirms  that  Christ  "  blotted 
it  out,  and  took  it  out  of  the  way,  naihng  it  to  his 
cross."  And  that  the  sacrifices  called  "burnt  offer- 
ings "  in  the  51st  and  66th  Psalms,  were  ail  typical 
of  Christ's  sacrifice  of  himself  for  removing  the  guilt 
of  his  people,  is  evident  from  what  the  Apostle  says, 
Eph.  5  :  2,  ^''  Walk  in  love,  as  Christ  also  hath  loved 
us,  and  hath  given  himself  for  us  an  offering  and  a 
sacrifice  to  God,  for  a  sweet  smelling  savour."  Is 
there  a  reader  now  w^ho  will  not  be  constrained  to  say 
"  that  th^re  must  be  something  very  defective  in  that 
system  of  Psalmody,  which  to  defend,  compels  a  man 
to  deny  that  the  Jewish  burnt  offerings  were  typical 
of  the  death  of  Christ. 

The  foregoing  remarks  contain  in  them  an  answer 
to  an  objection  with  which  our  reviewer  closes  this 
Number.  That  the  apostle  Paul  uses  typical  language 
in  the  10th  chapter  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  when 
inculcating  christian  duties.  He  does  so,  but  not  as 
having  reference  to  a  future  sacrifice  for  sin,  and  the 
two  positive  institutes  of  the  present  dispensation. 
Baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper,  are  not  typical  of 
other  ordinances  yet  to  be  introduced  into  the  church. 

But  he  may  say,  and  has  said,  "that  if  any  of  the 
Psalms  or  part  of  them  are  among  the  types  of  the 
legal  dispensation,  then  beyond  controversy  they  have 
vanished  away,  with  the  rest  of  those  rites  which  were 
the  shadow  of  good 'things  to  come."  We  presume 
that  by  the  Psalms  "vanishing  away"  he  means  as  a 
part  of  divine  revelation.  But  how  this  conclusion 
follows  his  premises,  we  do  not  see,  nor  can  we  see 
why  they  should  cease  to  be  part  of  the  word  of  God, 
although  the  typical  part  has  vanished  as  no  longer 
suitable  for  the  praises  of  God,  unless  the  substance  is 
substituted  and  sung  instead  of  the  shadow.  This  Dr. 
Watts  has  attempted  to  do  and  for  which  he  has  re- 
ceived and  is  receiving  much  abuse  and  reproach. — 


DISINGENUOUS     OBJECTION.  65 

But  to  return  to  the  objection,  Dr.  P.  might  as  well 
infer;  that  the  book  of  Leviticus  has  vanished  away 
as  a  part  of  divine  revelation,  because  its  ritual  has 
expired  by  the  introduction  of  the  christian  dispen- 
sation of  grace. 

We  have  said  In  our  Inquiry,  "that  the  frequency 
of  the  objection  to  an  evangelical  Psalmody,  that  the 
book  of  Psalms  contains*  inspired  songs  but  hymns 
are  the  production  of  uninspired  men  tends  more  to 
unhinge  the  minds  of  well-meaning,  but  weak  persons, 

*^^Uninspired  Hijmns,^''  and  '■'■Uninapired  ilf^n." — The  reader  has 
met,  and  will  fi-equcntly  mact  with  this  phraseology  in  our  quotalions 
from  Dr.  Pressly;  a  remark  or  two  on  it,  may  therefore  not  be  amiss. 
Notwithstanding  we  have  distinctly  said,  that  no  hymn  or  spiritual 
song  that  is  not  clearly  founded  upon,  and  agreeable  to  the  word  of 
God,  should  be  admitted  into  the  Psalmody  of  the  Churcl',  yet  he  and 
other  writers  on  his  side  of  the  question,  frequently  introduce  the  phrase 
— uninspired  hymn — without  telling  their  readers,  what  our  ideas  of  a 
hvmn  or  spiritual  song,  really  are.  To  the  well-maaning",  but  weak 
and  unlearned  ir.ind,  the  words  themselves  are  calculated  to  convey  the 
idea  that  hymns  or  spiritual  songs  do  not  contain  any  scriptural  or  di- 
vine ideas,  but  are  "  human  invent  ions  ;"  and  to  heighten  the  opposition, 
and  aversion  to  them,  they  add — "  coinposed  by  uninspired  men."  Is 
this  ingenuous,  or  honest,  or  honoraljle  ?  We  do  not  positively  say  that 
they  intend  to  convey  the  above  ideas  to  their  i^eaders,  but  from  the 
great  frequency,  and  the  connectio  i  in  which  the  phras  's  are  used,  it 
would  seem  that  this  is  their  design.  But  be  that  as  it  may,  there  is 
no  doubt,  but  that  they  are  so  unders  ood  by  their  readers  ;  and  this 
has  been  a  special  mean  of  prostdytism,  and  we  are  persuaded  that 
some,  if  not  many  of  tlieir  people  havr^  been  proselyted  by  these  means. 
But  if  it  is  a  great  sin  in  uninspired  TiCn  to  versify  portions  of  the 
scriptures  for  the  purpose  of  singing  them  in  the  praises  )f  God,  it  is 
surely  as  great  a  sin  in  sucli  to  use  them  in  praying  and  preaching.  If 
our  opponen's  will  but  fairly  tell  their  readers  what  we  understand  by  a 
hymn  or  spiritual  song,  they  may  us^  the  woi'ds  "uninspired  hymns, 
and  uninspired  men  "  as  often  as  they  plea-e;  but  we  have  never  mot 
with  a  writer  among  them,  who  has  done  so  fairly  and  fully. 

Besides,  it  is  preposterous  to  call  a  hymn  or  spiritual  song  founded 
on  some  portion  of  the  scriptures,  "a  human  invention" — for  how  can 
the  circumstance  of  that  portion  being  versified  by  an  uninspired  man 
divest  it  of  its  divine  character.  If  so,  then  every  prayer  and  every 
sermon,  although  founded  on,  and  extracted  from  the  word  of  God,  is  a 
"  human  invention."  We  will  not  quari-el  a,bout  word-:,  and  if  the  phra- 
ses "an  inspired  hymn,"  or  "  divine  song,"  do  not  sound  well  in  the 
ears  of  some,  let  it  be  admitted — what  cannot  be  denied — that  they 
contain  inspired  ideas,  and  we  ask  no  more.  It  will  then  be  incumbent 
on  such  to  assign  good  reasons  why  they  may  not  be  used  in  celebrating 
the  praises  of  God.  This  will  shorten  the  controversy  and  bring  it  to  a 
point. 


66  PSALMODY. 

and  to  enlist  them  under  the  standard  of  a  Judaizing 
Christianity,  than  anything  that  has  been  written  on  the 
subject.  This  language,  our  opponent  "conceives 
tends  to  cast  an  unworthy  reflection  on  the  spirit  of 
inspiration."  How  it  does  so,  we  can  neither  perceive 
nor  conceive,  and  the  question  is,  is  it  fact,  or  is  it  not. 
It  remains  yet  to  be  proved  that  w^e  are  to  confine 
ourselves  to  the  book  of  Psalms  in  our  praises  of  God, 
and  until  this  is  proved,  the  objection  lies  as  strongly 
against  the  preaching  and  praying  of  uninspired  men, 
as  against  signing  a  hymn,  founded  on  the  w^ord  of 
God.  And  whether  Dr.  Pressly's  scheme  of  singing 
the  Psalms  "literally,"  and  without  affixing  the  spir- 
itual meaning  to  the  types,  is  a  Judaizing  Christianity, 
is  left  wdth  the  reader  to  say.  If  it  is  not  altogether 
that  Judaizing  Christianity  which  Paul  condemns  and 
reproves  in  his  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  it  has  certain- 
ly some  of  its  features.  The  apostle  enjoins  it  upon 
us  in  one  epistle,  "that  whatsoever  we  do  in  word  or 
deed,  to  do  all  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  and 
in  another,  "that  at  the  name  of  Jesus,  every  knee 
should  bow,  and  every  tongue  confess  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the  father."  We 
would  now  ask,  if  refusing  to  celebrate  his  name  as 
mediator,  and  redeemer,  and  singing  of  him  only  in 
typical  and  obscure  language,  and  as  yet  to  come,  is 
not  something  like  a  Judaizing  Christianity?  Is  it  not, 
practically  "  not  confessing  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in 
the  flesh;"  and  which  the  Apostle  John  says,  "is  not 
of  God,"  or  not  agreeable  to  his  holy  word. 

We  have  also  said  in  our  "Inquiry,"  "that  had  the 
churches  of  the  Reformation  used  the  book  of  Psalms 
until  this  day,  we  would  not  have  any  evidence  that 
they  are  delivered  from  the  dominant  powder  of  "The 
Man  of  sin,"  as  there  is  no  Psalm  in  all  that  collec- 
tion which  can  be  called  "The  song  of  Moses  and  of 
the  Lamb."  This,  our  Review^er,  thinks,  is  not  con- 
sistent with  that  respect  which  is  due  to  the  produc- 


SONG    OF    MOSES    AND    THE    LAMB.  67 

tions  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  "and  imports  that  the  book 
of  Psahiis  as  a  collection  of  divine  songs  is  very  de- 
fective." And  as  proof  that  there  are  Psalms  which 
may  be  called  "The  song  of  Moses  and  the  Lamb," 
he  quotes  that  song,  and  then  those  Psalms,  for  the 
purpose  of  comparison.  The  song  of  Moses  and  the 
Lamb  is  this — "Great  and  marvellous  are  thy  works, 
Lord  God  Almighty,  just  and  true  are  thy  w-ays,  thou 
king  of  saints.  Who  shall  not  fear  thee,  O  Lord,  and 
glorify  thy  name,  for  thou  only  art  holy ;  for  all  na- 
tions shall  come  and  worship  before  thee  for  thy  judg- 
ments are  made  manifest,"  Rev.  16:  3,  4.  The  first 
of  the  Psalms  which  Dr.  P.  adduces  as  equivalent  to 
this,  is  Psalm  105:  5 — 7,  "Remember  his  marvellous 
works  that  he  hath  done,  and  the  judgments  of  his 
mouth.  O  ye  seed  of  Abraham,  his  servant,  ye  chil- 
dren of  Jacob  his  chosen.  He  is  the  Lord  our  God, 
his  judgments  are  in  all  the  earth."  Psalm  86  :  8 — 
10,  "Zion  heard  and  was  glad,  and  the  daughters  of 
Judah  rejoiced,  because  of  thy  judgments  O  Lord. — 
Among  the  gods,  there  is  none  like  unto  thee,  O  Lord 
neither  are  there  any  works  like  unto  thy  works.  All 
nations  which  thou  hast  made  shall  come  and  worship 
before  thee  O  Lord,  and  shall  glorify  thy  name.  For 
thou  art  great,  and  doest  wondrous  things ;  thou  art 
God  alone." 

To  this  w^e  reply,  that  there  is  no  defect  in  the 
Psalms.  They  answer  most  admirably  the  end  for 
which  they  were  given — to  be  a  system  of  Psalmody 
for  the  Jewish  church,  and  contain,  moreover,  much 
devotional  and  instructive  matter,  suited  to  the  praises 
of  God's  people,  under  the  present  dispensation  of 
grace.  But  there  is  a  great  defect  in  the  proof  ad- 
duced by  our  opponent  to  shew^  that  there  are  in  the 
book  of  Psalms,  Psalms  that  may  be  called  the  song 
of  Moses  and  the  Lamb.  Besides  the  circumstance 
that  the  above  Psalms  are  applicable  to  the  Jews  only, 
but  Christ  the  "Lamb  of  God  who  taketh  aw^ay  the 


68  ,      PSALMODY. 

sins  of  the  world,"  and  is  the  deliverer  of  his  church 
from  her  enemies,  is  not  mentioned  in  those  Psalms 
as  such,  nor  yet  in  any  Psalm  of  the  whole  collection. 
This  is  what  gives  the  song  of  Moses  and  the  Lamb 
its  distinctive  character ;  and  as  it  has  been,  or  will  be 
sung  in  the  Christian  church,  it  is  an  unquestionable 
precedent  that  songs  of  praise  have  been  sung  in  the 
church  at  present  which  are  not  in  the  book  of  Psalms. 
As  for  the  precepts  mentioned  in  Eph.  5  :  19  ;  and 
Col.  3  :  16,  17,  to  sing  "Psalms,  hymns,  and  spirit- 
ual songs,"  our  Reviewer  says  in  the  beginning  of 
this  number  that  they  are  "  entirely  unsatisfactory." 
This  is  a  compendious  w^ay  of  settling  a  disputed  point ; 
but  we  are  satisfied  that  if  he  could  have  overturned 
our  arguments  from  those  passages,  he  would  have 
tried  it,  and  until  this  is  done,  we  will  consider  that 
we  have  produced  both  precepts  and  precedents  for 
an  evangelical  Psalmody.  There  is  nothing  more  of 
any  importance  in  this  number  but  what  we  have  no- , 
ticed,  and  we  are  not  to  be  diverted  from  our  main 
object  by  entering  into  an  irrelevant  discussion  re- 
specting the  relative  merits  or  demerits  of  Rouse's  or 
Watt's  version  of  the  book  of  Psalms — we  have  a 
more  important  object  in  view. 

THE    PREACHER. 

It  would  seem  that  we  are  to  be  altogether  over- 
whelmed at  once.  Besides  the  occasional  attacks  in 
the  Missionary  Advocate,  a  friend  sent  us  a  few  days 
ago,  a  new  religious  Journal,  edited  by  Rev.  John  T. 
Pressly,  D.  D.  in  which  he  makes  his  debut,  by 
charging  us  with  gross  and  grievous  misrepresentations 
of  himself,  in  our  reply  to  his  Review.  The  first  is, 
that  we  represent  him  as  endeavoring  "to  put  us  in 
a  false  jDOsition"  in  the  beginning  of  the  discussion,  by 
his  stating  in  his  first  number  that  we  hold  that  our 
songs  of  praise,  are  to  be  taken  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment exclusively.     And  as  a  proof  that  we  hold  this 


THE    PREACHER.  69 

doctrine,  he  produces  our  saying  in  our  "Inquiry," 
that  the  phrase  "The  word  of  Christ"  in  Col.  3:  16, 
means  the  New  Testament  exclusively.  And  from 
our  asking  in  p.  207,  "where  did  the  church  militant 
on  earth,  and  the  church  triumphant  in  heaven,  get 
the  subject  matter  of  the  preceding  songs,  and  then 
saying,  "Assuredly  not  from  the  book  of  Psalms; 
for  Christ  is  no  where  in  that  book  represented  as  a 
Lamb  slain,  and  redeeming  his  people  by  his  blood  ; 
but  from  such  expressions  as  these — "we  have 
redemption  through  his  blood,"  &c.  Now,  how  he 
could  infer  from  these  passages,  that  we  hold  that  in 
our  praises  of  God,  we  are  to  confine  ourselves  to  the 
New  Testament  exclusively,  must  be  surprising  to 
every  reader  of  good  common  sense.  The  true  state 
of  the  case  is  this : — ^We  hold  that  it  is  the  privilege 
and  duty  of  the  church  to  draw  her  songs  of  praise 
from  both  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  and  the  above 
passages  were  adduced  as  proofs  of  the  latter  proposi- 
tion. But  that  we  did  not  exclude  the  Old  Testament 
from  our  songs  of  praise,  is  evident  from  the  following 
passages  in  our  "Inquiry,"  p.  206: — "The  scene 
which  John  saw  in  heaven,  or  the  habitation  God,  as 
recorded  in  the  fifth  chapter,  is  another  proof  that  we 
are  to  take  our  songs  of  praise  from  the  New,  as  well 
as  from  the  Old  Testament."  Again,  p.  213:  "But 
when  we  say,  that  all  that  is  typical  and  local,  in  the 
Psalms,  is  not  suited  to  gospel  worship  and  praise,  yet 
we  cheerfully  and  unhesitatingly  say,  that  whatever  iis 
devotional  and  preceptive,  is  highly  suited  to  the' 
praises  of  God,  and  accordingly  has  been  used  in  all 
ages  of  the  church,  and  we  are  persuaded,  will  be  used 
and  relished  to  the  end  of  time."  Dr.  Pressly  had 
read  these  passages,  and  how  he  could  with  these  and 
similar  passages  before  his  eyes  say,  that  we  are  for 
confinino;  the  sonojs  of  the  church  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment  exclusively,  is  to  us  altogether  unaccountable, 
unless  he   calculated  that  we  were  too  old  and   in- 


70  PSALMODY. 

firm,  to  reply  to  his  revievv'.  And  however  he  may 
writhe  mider  it,  the  charge  of  misrepresenting  us,  is 
now  for  the  second  time,  irremoA^eably  nailed  down 
upon  him,  and  for  bringing  it  again  before  the  public 
eye,  he  has  himself  alone  to  blame.  iVnd  here,  we 
hand  back  to  him  for  his  own  proper  use  and  improve- 
ment, this  good  advice  in  Prov.  2d  :  8 — "  Go  not  forth 
hastily  to  strive,  lest  thou  know  not  what  to  do  in  the 
end  thereof,  when  thy  neighbor  hath  put  thee  to  shame." 
He  seems  to  have  forgotten  who  was,  and  is  the  as- 
sailant in  this  controversy. 

Another  charge  is,  that  we  have  represented  him  as 
saying,  that  hymn-singing  exposes  the  singers  to  the 
punishment  inflicted  on  Nadab  and  Abihu  of  old,  for 
offering  "  strange  fire  before  the  Lord,"  but  which  he 
denies.     He  admits  havinof  said — "  And  have  we  not 

o 

reason  to  apprehend  that  disregard  to  divine  authority 
in  the  worship  of  God,  now  subjects  the  guilty  to  the 
displeasure  of  heaven,  as  certainly  as  it  did  the  pre- 
sumptuous sons  of  Aaron."  But  he  withholds  another 
sentence  of  his  own,  and  which  completely  exonerates 
us  from  the  charge.  It  is  this  :  that  when  professing 
christians  who  have  embraced  his  views  on  Psalmody, 
happen  to  be  where  hymns  are  sung,  "  however  well 
their  hearts  may  be  tuned,  and  however  ardently  they 
may  desire  to  engage  in  the  exercise,  they  are  com- 
pelled to  be  silent,  lest  they  should  be  chargeable  with 
offering  strange  fire  before  the  Lord."  And  now  we 
appeal  to  the  reader,  if  he  has  not  identified  the  singing 
of  hymns  with  the  "  strange  fire  offered  by  the  unhap- 
py sons  of  iVaron;"  and  if  he  has  not  said  that  hymm 
singers  are  now  exposed  to  the  punishment  inflicted 
on  those  presumptous  young  men.  He  now  says, 
however,  in  his  "Preacher,"  that  he  did  not  mean  that 
particular  punishment,  but  punishment  in  general,  for 
disregarding  the  divine  command.  Be  it  so  ;  and  it 
is  to  be  hoped,  that  he  will  be  more  cautious  for  the 
time  to  come,  in  expressing  his  opinion  of  the  enor- 


DR.  pressly's  avit.  71 

mous  guilt  of  his  neighbors  in  the  matter  and  man- 
ner of  their  worship,  and  examine  more  closely  how 
it  is  at  home.  For  there  are  not  a  few,  who  think 
that  the  worship  of  his  own  hearers  in  singing  the  typ- 
ical parts  of  the  Psalms  "literally,"  as  he  snys  they 
they  do,  is  more  like  "  the  strange  fire  "  alluded  to, 
than  singing  any  hymn  in  the  collection  of  the  Pres- 
byterian church.  His  best  friends  will  say,  that  he 
ought  not  to  have  brought  up  this  subject  again. 

As  for  the  witticisms  which  he  has  thrown  out  re- 
specting "our  undaunted  courage — holy  horror — and 
our  blood  being  excited  by  the  heat  of  the  weather 
when  we  wrote,"  we  will  pass  them  by  as  harmless 
things  which  can  do  no  honor  to  himself,  nor  dishonor 
to  us.  They  indicate  only  a  lack  of  argument.  He 
closes  this  attack  by  giving  us  what  he  calls  his  "first 
lesson."  When  he  reads  this,  he  will  see  clearly  that 
we  have  not  neglected  but  attended  to  it;  and  we  now 
return  the  favor  by  giving  him  one  also.  It  consists 
of  two  good  advices.  The  first  is,  that  as  he  has  made 
preparation  for  entering  extensively  into  controversy 
in  the  "Preacher;"  then  we  advise  him  always  to 
quote  his  opponents,  and  himself  too,  fairly  and  fully, 
and  not  by  halves.  This  will  save  him  a  good  deal 
of  trouble,  and  it  may  be,  some  shame,  in  his  reviewing 
and  editorial  career.  The  second  is,  that  as  he  is,  or 
thinks  he  is  possessed  of  a  fund  of  wit,  and  is  not 
backward  to  let  it  flash  occasionally,  then,  for  the 
credit  of  the  Doctorship,  let  h  be  that  of  a  Dr.  South, 
and  not  of  a  Joe  Miller — "Thus  endeth  our  first 
lesson." 


72  PSALMODY. 


NO.  VIIL 

De/i?iitions  of  Human  Inventions  and  Human  Compo- 
sure sustained — Misrepresentation. 

We  have  said  in  our  last  number,  that  the  discus- 
sion on  Psalmody,  between  Dr.  Pressly  and  ourselves, 
was  fast  descending,  on  his  part,  into  trifling  cavils,  and  a 
war  of  words.  .  Whether  he  has  finished  his  review  of 
our  "Inquiry"  we  cannot  tell;  but  be  that  as  it  may, 
he  has,  in  the  first  and  second  numbers  of  his  "  Preach- 
re,"  commenced  what  he  calls  "Remarks"  on  our 
reply  to  his  Review.  We  have  made  a  few  strictures 
in  our  last  number,  on  the  first  number  of  his  Remarks ; 
and  our  object  in  this  is  to  make  a  few  also  on  his 
Remarks,  No.  II. 

And  indeed  we  scarcely  know  how  to  begin,  as  it 
necessarily  must  be  a  war  about  words,  and  not  about 
doctrines,  precepts,  or  things.  We  have  said  in  our 
"  Inquiry,"  that  "  human  inventions,"  strictly  and 
properly  speaking,  mean  something  devised  by  human 
wisdom  in  the  useful  arts  and  sciences ;  and  that  the 
words  "human  composure"  also  mean  something 
composed  by  men,  the  subject  matter  of  which,  is 
human  interests  or  concerns;  and  that  it  is  improper  to 
apply  them  to  any  composition  relating  to  the  plan  of 
redemption  by  Christ,  as  the  devising  and  application 
of  that  glorious  and  gracious  plan  was  altogether  di- 
vine. On  the  other  hand,  Dr.  P.  from  Mr.  Reid 
understands  by  "  human  inventions,"  "  every  doctrine, 
every  mode  of  worship,  and  every  church  regulation, 
for  which  there  is  no  authority  in  the  word  of  God  ;" 
and  then  says,  "  that  we  have  not  brought  forward  any 
scriptural  proof  in  support  of  our  definition  of  the 
words."  We  have  no  objections  that  every  thing  re- 
lating to  this  controversy  be  tried  by  that  infahible 
standard  ;  and  since  he  demands  scriptural  proof  on 


PERVERSION    OF    TERMS.  73 

this  point,  he  shall  have  it.  In  second  Chron.  26  :  15, 
it  is  said  of  king  Uzziah,  that  he  made  in  Jerusalem 
engines  invented  by  cunning  men,  to  be  on  the  towers, 
and  upon  the  bulwarks,  to  shoot  arrows  and  great 
stones  withal.  And  in  the  j^rophecy  of  Amos,  0:  5, 
certain  persons  are  mentioned  "who  chant  to  the  sound 
of  the  viol,  and  invent  to  themselves  instruments  of 
music  like  David."  As  for  Psalm  106:  29,  where  it 
is  said  that  the  Jews  "  provoked  God  to  anger  with 
their  inventions,"  and  which  Dr.  P.  adduces  for  his 
use  of  the  words,  they  were,  properly  speaking,  spir- 
itual inventions,  devised  by  "  spiritual  wickednesses  in 
high  places,"  and  of  which,  the  worship  of  Baal-peor 
mentioned  in  the  preceding  verse  was  one.  And 
what  now  is  the  difference  between  Dr.  P.  and  Mr. 
Reid,  and  ourselves  in  regard  to  those  words.  We 
understand  them  as  strictly  and  properly  meaning 
inventions  in  the  arts  and  sciences;  but  they  apply 
them  to  what  they  deem  deviations  from  the  true  wor- 
ship of  God.  It  was  of  this  that  we  complained  in 
our  "  Inquiry,"  as  throwing  a  terrifying  atmosphere 
around  the  worship  of  God,  where  hymns  and  spiritual 
songs  are  used  in  his  praise,  unless  it  can  be  positively 
proved,  that  in  that  part  of  his  worship,  we  are  not  to 
sing  any  versified  portion  of  the  Scrij^tures  but  the 
book  of  Psalms.  But  this  has  not  been  proved  as  yet, 
and  until  it  is  proved,  we  repeat  it,  that  the  frequent 
use  of  these  words  as  aj^plied  by  our  oj^ponents,  is 
throwing  a  darkening,  terrifying  and  deleterious 
atmosphere  around  the  subject  of  Psalmody,  and  fill- 
ing th-e  well-meaning  but  weak  mind  with  perplexity, 
and,  as  we  think,  with  groundless  terror. 

As  for  the  phrase  "  human  composure,"  or  compo- 
sition, we  still  adhere  to  our  definition  of  the  words  in 
our  "  Inquiry,"  that  it  is  something  in  prose  or  in 
verse,  composed  by  man,  the  subject  matter  of  which 
is  human  views,  wishes,  concerns,  or  interests.  Dr. 
P.,  however,  says,  "that  the  latter  part  of  this  defini- 
7 


74  PSALMODY. 

tion  is  not  only  unnecessary,  but  imposes  a  restriction 
upon  the  meaning  of  the  words  defined,  inconsistent 
with  their  plain  import."  After  this  he  gives  us  his 
own  definition  of  the  words  thus — "A  human  compo- 
sure is  something -composed  by  man."  That  is,  hu- 
man composure  is  human  composure  ;  and  as  accord- 
ing to  his  definition  it  has  no  relation  to  human  affairs, 
it  is  therefore  about  nothing  under  the  sun.  The  def- 
inition is  indeed  neat  and  concise ;  but  we  cannot  adopt 
it,  because  it  is  like  what  Esop  in  one  of  his  fables  tells 
us  the  fox  said  of  a  well  formed  likeness  of  the  human 
head  which  he  saw  in  a  barber's  shop — "  O  !  what  a 
beautiful  head,  but  it  has  no  brains."  *  He  does  in- 
deed afterwards  say,  "that  it  may  be  immaterial  what 
may  be  the  subject-matter  of  the  composition  ;"  but  if 
the  latter  part  of  our  definition  is  ^Hnmecessarij,''^  it 
excludes  all  sublunary  ideas  whatever.  There  are 
indeed  many  compositions  in  the  world  that  are  very 
scanty  of  ideas,  but  we  have  never  read  any  that  had 
not  some  ideas,  more  or  less.  And  here,  by  the  way, 
we  would  observe,  that  as  Dr.  P.  is  printing  his  part 
of  this  discussion,  his  readers  will  find  a  great  scanti- 
ness of  ideas  respecting  "  human  inventions  and  human 
composure,"  and  also  on  what  he  has  said  respecting 
his  hearers  not  singing  his  explanations  of  the  Psalms  ; 
for  all  he  has  said  on  those  j)oints  in  this  number,  he 
has  said  in  the  second  number  of  his  review.  We  do 
not  remember  an  additional  idea  in  the  second  edition, 
and  why  he  introduced  them  again  we  cannot  tell, 
unless  it  was  to  increase  the  size  of  the  book.  But  on 
the  point  more  immediately  at  hand,  we  would  farther 
remark,  that  although  the  phrase  "  human  composure  " 

*  Dr.  Pressly  had  given  the  above  definition  of  "  liuman  composure  " 
in  the  second  number  of  his  review  ;  but  we  took  no  notice  of  it,  from 
the  persuasion  that  every  intelligent  reader  would  see  that  it  was  ab- 
surd and  ridiculous.  But  when  he  introduced  it  again  and  with  the  air 
of  an  unanswerable  ai'gument,  we  thought  it  necessary  to  notice,  and 
exhibit  it  in  its  true  character,  that  we  might  not  be  troubled  with  it 
again. 


NO    PROOF    YET.  75 

has  evidently  reference  to  compositions  in  prose  or  in 
verse,  on  human  affairs,  yet  as  there  are  many  com- 
positions in  verse  on  divine  subjects,  it  is  improper  to 
apply  it  to  such.  The  circumstance  of  their  being 
founded  on  the  divine  word,  removes  them  from  '*  hu- 
man composure,"  stricdy  and  properly  speaking ;  for 
Dr.  P.  himself  acknowledges  and  admits,  "  that  it  is 
the  subject  matter  of  a  composition  that  gives  it  its 
distinctive  character."  And  as  already  observed,  to 
apply  the  phrase  to  a  hymn,  or  spiritual  song,  has  a 
tendency  to  fill  the  serious  but  weak  mind  with  terrors, 
lest  singing  such  hymns  would  be  worshipping  God 
with  what  is  human,  and  not  divine,  or  not  founded 
on  his  word. 

To  put  an  end  to  this  state  of  perplexity  and  terror, 
we  have  repeatedly  called  on  Dr.  P.  for  the  proof  of 
his  assumption  "  that  the  book  of  Psalms  was  designed 
as  an  exclusive  system  of  Psalmody  for  the  church," 
but  we  have  called  in  vain.  And  here  we  confess 
that  we  could  scarcely  believe  our  eyes,  when  we  read 
the  following  sentence  :  '^  And  I  appeal  to  every  intel- 
ligent reader,  while  I  say  that  there  is  not  a  particle  of 
truth  in  this  unqualified  declaration,  that  I  assume  the 
point  at  issue."  One  would  expect  that  after  this 
unqualified  charge  on  our  veracity,  he  would  refer  the 
reader  to  those  Scripture  passages  which  he  has  adduced, 
to  prove  that  we  are  to  confine  ourselves  to  the  book 
of  Psalms  in  the  praises  of  God.  The  reader  who 
has  not  seen  his  Review,  may  be  ready  to  ask  and 
does  he  not  do  so  ?  No,  not  a  single  passage  to  that 
purport.  What  then  ?  "  That  he  exhibited  as  clearly 
as  he  could  the  principle  for  which  his  author  contends, 
and  stated  his  own.  But  the  statement  of  the  principle 
for  which  one  contends,  is  certainly  a  very  different  thing 
from  the  point  at  issue."  Very  true  ;  but  when  the 
principle  for  which  one  contends  is  called  in  quesdon, 
as  we  do  his,  then  proof  is  indispensably  necessary. 
This  is  what  we  demanded  and  called  for ;  but  all  to 


76  PSALMODY. 

no  purpose.  He  concludes  this  strange  and  we  must 
say  reckless  paragraph  thus — "  I  assume  no  principle 
in  dispute,  without  producing  what  I  regard  sufficient 
proof  in  support  of  it."  He  has  assumed  that  the 
church  in  her  praises  of  God  is  to  confine  herself  to 
the  book  of  Psalms ;  and  we  repeat  it,  that  he  has  not 
given  a  single  iota  of  proof  from  tlie  Scripture,  in 
support  of  the  assumption.  But  there  is  a  ray  of  hope 
in  this  case,  for  he  says  in  the  last  words  of  the  para- 
graph— •"  On  this  subject  the  reader  will  have  more 
full  and  satisfactory  evidence  as  we  advance."  We 
will  see. 

And  here  we  could  not  but  smile  at  the  a^^ology 
which  he  makes  for  not  proving  the  position  with 
which  he  set  out  in  the  first  number  of  his  Review — 
"  That  it  is  the  will  of  God  that  the  sacred  songs  con- 
tained in  the  book  of  Psalms,  be  sung  in  his  worship 
both  public  and  private  to  the  end  of  tlie  world,  and 
that  we  have  no  authority  to  use  any  other."  He 
says  that  the  reason  why  he  did  not  adduce  any  Scrip- 
tural proof  in  support  of  this  proposition  was — that  he 
wished  to  overturn  the  system  of  Psalmody  taught  in 
our  Inquiry,  and  then  bring  forward  the  proof  for  his 
own.  Now,  we  would  think,  that  the  best  method 
would  have  been  first  to  prove  the  proposition,  and 
then  from  that  proposition,  demolish  the  system  of  his 
opponents.  But  instead  of  this,  he  takes  the  proposi- 
tion for  granted,  and  then  argues  from  it  as  an  admit- 
ted truth.  We  wonder  what  system  of  Logic  he  was 
taught — it  was  certainly  not  "Watt's  Logic" — and  if 
he  teaches  his  theological  students  that  in  framing  their 
sermons,  they  are  first  to  unfold  and  explain  the  doc- 
trines which  they  wish  to  teach,  but  not  prove  them 
as  they  go  along,  but  when  they  have  finished,  then 
to  bring  forward  the  proof.  If  he  does  not  teach 
them  so  by  precept,  he  has  taught  them  so,  by  a  most 
palpable  and  striking  example  in  this  discussion.  He 
says  alsoj  that  the  reason  why  we  called  upon  him 


MISREPRESENTATION.  77 

for  the  proof  of  his  proposition  was  to  divert  him 
from  his  assaults  on  our  "Inquiry."  He  is  ahogether 
mistaken,  and  could  not  know  that  we  had  any  such 
design.  We  called  for  proof,  hecause  we  felt  in- 
dignant that  he  should  take  his  proposition  for  granted, 
while  we  offered  what  we  believed,  and  still  believe 
to  be  proof  of  our  proposition ; — that  every  part  of 
the  word  of  God  which  is  suhed  for  praise,  may  be 
employed  for  that  purpose,  as  well  as  in  preaching  and 
praying. 

We  cannot  dismiss  this  point,  although  in  a  great 
measure  a  war  of  words,  and  groundless  assertions, 
without  noticing  a  syllogism  which  Dr.  P.  has  been 
so  kind  as  to  frame  for  us.  He  says,  "that  in  the 
first  place  we  set  out  with  the  assertion,  which  may 
be  admitted,  that  hymns  composed  by  uninspired  men 
relate  to  the  plan  of  redemption.  But  the  plan  of 
redemption  is  a  matter  of  divine  revelation,  and  not  a 
human  discovery.  Therefore — what  ?  The  proprie- 
ty of  using  hymns  composed  by  uninspired  men." — 
Now,  there  are  no  such  assertions  or  reasonings  in  any 
part  of  our  "Inquiry,"  nor  any  thing  said  by  us  from 
which  such  a  conclusion  can  be  legitimately  drawn. — 
If  there  is,  we  here  call  upon  our  opponent  to  produce 
it;  and  if  he  does  not,  we  must  and  will  consider  the 
above  passage  a  gross  misrepresentation.  On  the  con- 
trary, we  have  said  in  the  chapter  respecting  "human 
inventions,  and  human  composure"  (p.  190)  what  ex- 
pressly contradicts  his  conclusion,  and  which  he  has 
read.  The  sentence  is  this — "we  are  not  now  enqui- 
ring if  it  be  lawful  to  use  hymns  in  the  public  worship 
of  God,  but  into  the  real  meaning  of  the  hackneyed 
words — human  inventions."  This  is  not  the  first  time 
that  we  have  had  reason  to  complain  of  Dr.  P.  for 
not  quoting  us  " fairly  and  fully."  And  "indolent" 
as  he  says  our  mind  is,  and  impaired  as  its  faculties 
are  by  age,  and  its  accompanying  infirmities,  it  is  not 
yet  reduced  to  such  imbecility,  as  that  we  could  rea- 


78  PSALMODY. 

« 

son  in  such  a  silly  manner  as  he  represents  in  the 
above  quotation.  Indeed,  from  the  recklessness  of 
assertion  and  palpable  contradictions  in  this  No.  it 
would  seem  to  us,  that  from  some  cause  or  other,  his 
own  mind  was  in  a  state  of  perturbation  when  he  was 
writing  it.  Was  it  from  a  view  and  consideration 
of  the  many  difficulties  which  surround  his  system  of 
Psalmody  ? 

When  Dr.  Pressly  had  given  us  a  second  edition 
of  all  he  had  said  in  the  2d  number  of  his  Review  re- 
specting "  human  inventions,  and  human  composure," 
he  proceeds  to  tell  us  that  the  people  of  the  Associate 
Reformed  church  do  not  sing  the  explanation  of  the 
Psalm  given  by  their  ministers,  but  "  sing  the  Psalm 
itself,  literally  and  truly  ;  the  very  words  of  the  Psalm, 
and  not  the  explanation  which  they  have  heard." — 
We  confess  that  we  were  shocked  when  we  read  these 
words,  more  full  and  definite  than  his  first  declarations 
on  the  point  in  the  2d  number  of  his  review.  We 
were  shocked,  because  if  true,  it  exhibits  a  scene  of 
mental  lying  in  the  house,  and  in  the  more  immediate 
presence  of  God,  of  which  we  had  no  previous  con- 
ceptions. For  instance  when  he  selects  the  66th 
Psalm  to  be  sung,  he  will  tell  his  hearers,  we  presume, 
that  the  words,  "  I  will  go  into  thy  house  with  burnt 
offerings,  I  will  offer  unto  thee  burnt  sacrifices," 
were  typical  of  the  sacrifice  Christ  offered  up  of  him- 
self for  the  sins  of  his  people,  but  then  in  singing  them 
they  do  not  sing  the  explanation,  or  direct  the  eye  of 
the  mind  or  the  eye  of  faith  to  that  sacrifice  for  ac- 
ceptance with  God,  but  sing  them  "literally  and  truly" 
as  they  are,  and  tell  Jehovah  to  his  face  that  they  will 
offer  him  burnt  sacrifices,  when  at  the  same  time  they 

have  no  desio^n  to   do  so.     If  this  is  not  awful  Ivino^ 
.  .  .  .0 

with  the  mind  and  with  the  tongue,  in  the  more  imme- 
diate presence  of  God,  we  know  not  what  can  be  so 
denominated.  We  will  suppose  again,  that  he  selects 
some  of  those  Psalms  in  which  the  Psalmist  says  that 


"literally  and  truly.  /y 

he  will  praise  God,  or  calls  upon  others  to  praise  him, 
with  "harps,  psalteries,  cornets,  organs,  ten  stringed 
instruments,  trumpets,  and  high  sounding  cymhals  ;  " 
he  will  tell  them  we  would  also  presume  that  these  in- 
struments of  music,  symbolized  and  denoted  high  and 
holy  affections  in  praising  God  ;  but  then,  according  to 
his  theory  and  practice  on  the  subject,  they  are  not  to 
regard  his  explanations,  nor  look  to  God  for  those  af- 
fections, but  sing  those  Psalms  "  literally  and  truly"  as 
they  are  in  their  Psalm  book,  and  when  at  the  same 
time  there  is  not  one  of  these  instruments  of  music  in 
the  church,  nor  persons  to  play  upon  them.  What,  we 
would  again  ask,  is  this,  but  a  most  solemn  mockery 
of  that  God  who  will  not  be  mocked  with  impunity,  nor 
give  his  praise  to  graven  images.  If  there  are  church- 
es who  sing  the  praises  of  God  according  to  the  pre- 
ceding plan,  we  must  siy  of  them — "O  my  soul  come 
not  thou  into  their  secret,  unto  their  Assembly  my 
honor  be  not  thou  united."  But  we  cannot  believe 
that  there  are  such  churches,  and  if  such  individuals 
there  are,  their  number  is  small. 

He  concludes  this  paragraph  with  an  illustration 
which  he  no  doubt  thought  would  com23letely  silence 
us,  and  vindicate  his  own  theory  and  practice  on  this 
subject.  He  supposes  that  Dr.  Ralston  sometimes 
explains  a  chapter  of  the  word  of  God  for  the  benefit 
of  his  hearers — that  if  a  head  of  a  family  who  had 
heard  it  should  read  the  same  chapter  in  family  de- 
votion, and  repeat  our  explanatory  remarks,  he  then 
asks,  if  they  read  Dr.  Ralston's  Bible,  or  do  they  read 
the  word  of  God  ?  Now,  although  we  believe  that 
this  illustration  was  designed  not  only  as  a  vindication 
of  his  theory,  but  as  a  very  witty  retort  for  what  we 
have  formerly  said  about  "  singing  Pressly's  Psalms," 
it  militates  strongly  against  him.  For  why  would  a 
head  of  a  family  repeat  our  explanations  to  his  house- 
hold but  that  they  might  affix  our  ideas  to  any  part  of 
the  chapter  that  may  be  obscure  when  they  should 


80  PSALMODY. 

read  or  meditate  upon  it,  if  they  would  profit  by  their 
reading  or  meditation.  But  not  so  is  it  in  the  case 
under  consideration.  No  matter  how  typical  or  other- 
wise obscure  the  Psalm  may  be,  and  no  matter  how 
judicious  or  evangelical  the  explanations  may  be,  the 
people  are  not  to  make  any  use  of  them  in  singing, 
notwithstanding  the  apostle  expressly  enjoins  it  upon 
us,  "  to  sing  with  the  understanding."  It  is  enough, 
it  seems,  according  to  Dr.  P's  theory,  that  what  they 
sing  is  the  word  of  God,  whether  they  understand  it 
or  not,  or  whether  it  is  suited  to  the  worship  of  the 
Jewish  or  of  the  Christian  dispensation  of  grace. — 
Some  of  our  readers  may  be  now  ready  to  ask,  of 
what  use,  then,  is  the  explanation,  and  what  could 
induce  Dr.  P.  to  contend  for  such  a  manner  of  sing- 
ing. The  secret  is  this,  to  admit  of  our  singing  the 
explanation  of  a  typical,  or  otherwise  obscure  Psalm, 
would  be  to  admit  mental  "  human  composure,"  as  he 
calls  it,  in  the  worship  of  God,  but  that  would  over- 
turn his  whole  system  of  Psalmody.  We  admit  that 
every  Psalm  in  the  collection  may  be  profitably  sung 
when  the  antitypical  idea  taken  from  the  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  is  affixed  to  the  typical  word,  but  to  sing 
them  according  to  his  plan  is,  in  our  apprehension, 
alike  absurd  and  impious. 

We  will  close  this  number  by  remarking,  that  from 
the  poverty  of  words  in  all  languages,  many  words 
are  necessarily  used  in  a  lesser  and  more  extended 
sense.  This  is  the  case  with  the  word  "  divine"  in 
our  own  lanouas^e.  It  is  used  in  its  most  extended 
sense  to  denote  the  character  of  the  Scriptures  as  alto- 
gether divine,  because  the  writers  were  divinely  in- 
spired. It  is  also  used  to  denote  any  hymn  or  spirit- 
ual sons^  founded  on  the  divine  word.  In  this  sense 
we  used  it  in  our  "  Inquiry,"  p.  192,  as  is  evident 
from  the  drift  and  design  of  our  argument.  But  Dr. 
P.,  in  the  2d  number  of  his  review,  represents  us  as 
using  it  in  its  most  extended  sense,  and  thereby  ''  ele- 


UNFAIRNESS.  81 

vatino;  a  hymn  composed  by  uninspired  men  to  a  level 
with  the  word  of  God."  And  then,  first  in  his  own 
name,  and  again  "  in  the  name  of  the  Protestant  church 
of  Christ,  enters  his  solemn  protest"  against  the  im- 
pious doctrine.  In  our  2d  number  we  noticed  and 
explained  the  matter,  and  we  reasonably  expected 
that  should  he  recur  to  this  point  again,  he  would 
make  the  necessary  apology  and  announce  to  his 
readers  that  he  had  mistaken  our  meaning  of  the  word. 
But  instead  of  this,  he  introduces  us  in  the  paragraph 
last  examined  as  saying  "  that  evangelical  hymns 
composed  by  uninspired  men  are  divine  compositions," 
w^ithout  tellino;  his  readers  in  what  sense  we  under- 
stand  the  word  "divine"  when  predicated  of  hymns 
in  this  discussion,  but  leaving  them  to  understand  it  in 
the  sense  against  which  he  had  so  pompously  protest- 
ed. Now  we  must  say,  that  this  was  neither  ingenu- 
ous nor  honest.  Although  he  had  in  the  second 
number  of  his  Review  distinctly  identified  the  singing 
of  hymns  wdth  the  "  strange  fire  "  offered  up  by  Na- 
hab  and  Abihu  of  old  ;  and  although  he  had  as  dis- 
tinctly said,  that  the  singers  were  now  liable  to  be 
consumed  by  fire  from  heaven  as  were  those  unhappy 
young  men  ;  yet  when  he  said  in  the  1st  number  of 
his  "  remarks  "  that  he  did  not  mean  that  kind  of  pun- 
ishment, but  punishment  in  general,  w^e  felt  it  to  be 
our  duty  to  announce  it  to  our  readers,  as  w^e  did  in 
our  7th  number.  Any  man  in  the  course  and  heat  of 
controversy  may  use  a  word  of  doubtful  meaning, 
without  sufficient  explanation,  and  which  may  be  in- 
terpreted to  his  disadvantage.  But  when  he  has  ex- 
plained himself,  it  is  the  duty  and  honor  of  his  oppo- 
nent to  publish  bis  explanation,  and  not  to  do  so  is 
alike  disingenuous  and  dishonorable.  As  Dr.  Pressly 
is  about  to  enter  largely  into  controversy  in  his 
"  Preacher,"  the  preceding  observations  may  be  of 
use  to  him  in  his  future  literary  career — "Thus  end- 
eth  our  second  lesson." 


82  PSALMODY. 

NO.  IX. 

History  of  Psalmody  Defended, 

That  our  readers  might  have  a  full  view  of  the  sub- 
ject under  discussion,  we  presented  to  them  in  our 
3d  number  a  brief  history  of  Psalmody,  from  the  ear- 
liest ages  to  the  present  period  of  the  church.  We 
observed,  "  that  it  is  evident  from  sacred  history  that 
the  church  of  God  was  in  the  habit,  from  the  earliest 
ages,  of  singing  songs  of  praise  to  him,  and  which 
have  not  formed  any  23art  of  the  book  of  Psalms,  and 
that  the  fair  presumption  is,  that  they  were  the  pro- 
ductions of  uninspired  men."  As  proof  of  this,  we 
referred  to  Gen.  4:  26;  Judges  21 :  19,  20,  and  1 
Sam.  IS  :  26,  in  all  of  which  religious  songs  are  said 
to  have  been  sung  in  honor  of  Jehovah,  but  none  of 
which  are  in  the  book  of  Psalms.  And  how  now 
does  Dr.  P.  meet  and  answer  this  argument?  Does 
he  attempt  to  show  that  those  songs  w^ere  composed 
by  inspired  persons,  or  that  they  are  in  the  book  of 
Psalms.  No — ^he  does  not  even  mention  or  refer  to 
them,  and  it  was  prudent  in  him  not  to  do  so,  but  he 
makes  no  little  noise  about  our  saying  that  it  is  "a 
fair  presumption  "  that  those  songs  were  of  a  religious 
character,  or  in  other  words,  that  our  argument  is  only 
of  the  presumptive  kind.  We  acknowledge  that  the 
word  "  presumption  "  was  not  well  selected,  as  it  con- 
veys a  fainter  idea  than  was  intended.  But  as  it  is 
our  own,  we  have  a  right  to  change  it  for  a  better,  and 
to  remove  the  cavil,  we  now  say,  that  until  he  proves 
that  those  songs  were  not  of  a  religious  character,  and 
not  acceptable  to  Jehovah,  it  is  a  fair  inference  that 
they  were  the  productions  of  pious  but  uninspired 
men,  and  founded  on  some  revelation  of  the  charac- 
ter and  will  of  God.  We  have  said  in  a  former  num- 
ber that  this  discussion,  on  the  part  of  our  opponent, 


i 


HISTORY.  83 

was  fast  descending  into  trifling  cavils,  and  a  war  of 
words ;  and  it  is  left  with  the  reader  to  say,  whether 
or  not,  the  preceding  objection  is   of  this  character. 

But  we  did  not  stop  here.  We  shewed  in  a  con- 
densed narrative  from  the  late  Rev.  T.  D.  Baird's 
*' Inquiry"  on  the  subject  of  Psalmody,  that  spiritual 
songs  composed  by  uninspired  men  were  sung  in  the 
christian  church  from  the  Apostles'  age  to  the  present 
day, — that  they  were  used,  and  are  still  used,  if  not 
in  all,  yet  in  the  greatest  number  of  the  churches  of 
the  Reformation, — "That  the  subject  came  before  the 
General  Assembly  of  the  Scottish  church  in  1647, 
164S,  16S6,  and  the  Associate  Burgher  Synod, 
(from  which  we  are  told  Dr.  P.  is  ecclesiastically 
sprung,)  in  1747,  and  that  those  bodies  appear  to  have 
admitted  the  lawfulness  of  using  in  Psalmody  any 
Scripture  song. 

And  to  this  we  would  add,  that  Dr.  P.  tells  us  in 
the  2d  number  of  his  "Preacher"  "  that  in  conse- 
quence of  difficulties  arising  out  of  a  disposition  on 
.the  part  of  some  of  the  Eastern  brethren  to  conform  to 
the  usages  of  other  churches,  the  General  Synod  of 
the  Associate  Reformed  church  was  resolved  into 
three  independent  co-ordinate  Synods,  the  Synod  of 
the  West,  the  Synod  of  the  South,  and  the  Synod  of 
New  York."  Now,  what  were  those  "  usages,"  a 
conforming  to  which  produced  this  separation  V  Did 
it  not  arise  from  the  members  alluded  to  occasionally 
singing  hymns  in  Presbyterian  churches,  when  they 
happened  to  be  providentially  present?  Here,  then, 
we  have  the  history  of  an  evangelical  Psalmody 
brought  down  to  the  present  day,  even  among  those 
who  are  dissentients  from  the  church  of  Scotland,  and 
the  Presbyterian  church  in  the  United  States  of 
America.  As  Dr.  P.  says  that  the  Associate  Reform- 
ed Synod  of  New  York  is  a  "  co-ordinate  "  Synod 
with  the  Synods  of  the  North  and  of  the  South,  we 
would  be  glad  to  know  how  he  treats  those  brethren, 
who,   according  to  his   opinion,  occasionally  "  offer 


84  PSALMODY. 

Strange  fire  before  the  Lord,"  when  he  happens  to 
meet  them,  does  he  commmie  and  mterchange  pulpits 
with  them  ?  If  he  does,  then  what  is  this  protracted 
discussion  about  ?  If  he  does  not,  on  account  of  their 
occasionally  using  an  evangelical  Psalmody,  why  call 
them  Associate  Reformed  Presbyterians  at  all,  and  the 
Synod  of  which  they  are  members  a  co-ordinate 
Svnod  with  that  to  which  he  belono^s.  One  would 
expect,  that  when  endeavoring  to  invalidate  the  argu- 
ment in  favor  of  an  evangelical  Psalmody,  deducible 
from  the  preceding  short  history,  he  would  notice  and 
endeavor  to  explain  the  foregoing  facts,  so  as  not  to 
counteract  his  theory  and  practice.  But  he  is  also 
prudently  silent  on  those  points,  and  confirms  the  truth 
of  the  old  adage,  "that  the  legs  of  the  lame  are  not 
equal." 

In  the  course  of  our  compendious  history  we  ob- 
served, that  the  song  of  Moses  and  the  Israelites  at  the 
Red  Sea,  was  an  inspired  song,  and  therefore  came 
not  within  the  sphere  of  our  inquiry.  We  observed, 
also,  that  this  song  is  not  in  the  book  of  Psalms,  and 
why  it  is  not,  our  opponent  perhaps  can  tell  us  the 
reason,  for  we  cannot.  On  this  Dr.  P.  remarks  thus 
— "  Why  he  should  have  noticed  this  song  at  all,  it  is 
not  easy  to  discover,  unless  it  was  to  display  his  wit, 
for  which  he  is  so  remarkable."  Whether  the  reader 
can  discover  any  thing  witty  in  the  above  quotation, 
we  cannot  tell ;  but  we  Avho  wrote  it,  have  not  seen, 
nor  can  we  see,  any  thing  in  it,  but  a  simple  confession 
of  ignorance  on  the  point.  And  when  we  read  his 
remark,  by  that  law  of  mind  called  "Association,"  the 
following  appropriate  distich  of  the  witty  author  of 
Hudibras,  came  bolting  into  our  memory,  impaired 
as  it  is — 

"  Optics  sharp,  they  have,  we  ween, 
Who  see  what  is  not  to  be  seen." 

After  this.  Dr.  P.  gives  us  an  instance  and  proof  of 
his  extraordinary  mental  vision,  by  telling  us,  "  that 


PROOF    DEMANDED    AGAIN.  S5 

the  song  was  prepared  and  designed  by  its  divine  au- 
thor for  a  particular  occasion.  '  And  not  being  design- 
ed for  permanent  use  in  the  worship  of  God  he  did 
not  think  proper  to  give  it  a  place  in  the  book  of 
Psalms.  We  meet  with  divine  songs  in  almost  every 
part  of  the  Bible.  But  God  has  given  his  church  one 
book  of  Psalms  only.  Those  divine  songs  which  were 
designed  for  permanent  use  in  the  worship  of  God, 
occupy  a  place  in  the  book  of  Psalms;  while  those 
which  were  not  designed  for  this  purpose  are  found  in 
various  other  parts  of  the  Bible."  He  tells  us  also 
that  it  affords  him  unspeakable  pleasure  "to  give  us 
the  above  information." 

We  thank  him  for  his  benevolence  and  beneficence, 
and  tell  him,  that  it  will  give  us,  if  not  unspeakable, 
yet  great  pleasure,  if  he  will  produce  proof  that  will 
substantiate  the  foregoing  items  of  his  information,  for 
it  will  put  an  end  to  this  controversy,  protracted  by 
him  beyond  all  reasonable  bounds.  In  the  first  place, 
we  ask  for  proof  that  the  song  of  Moses  alluded  to, 
was  designed  for  a  particular  occasion  only,  and  not 
for  permanent  use  in  the  church.  It  was  composed 
and  sung  on  occasion  of  a  most  notable  deliverance 
which  the  church  of  God  had  experienced  from  those 
who  sought  its  utter  destruction,  and  is  one  of  the  su- 
blimest  pieces  of  sacred  poetry.  And  from  its  being 
referred  to  in  "the  Revelation"  by  John,  and  coupled 
with  the  "song  of  the  Lamb,"  one  would  think  that 
it  was  designed  for  permanent  use  in  the  church,  and 
we  are  persuaded  that  the  time  will  come,  when  it 
will  form  a  part  of  her  Psalmody.  Secondly,  we  want 
information  respecting  the  person  or  persons,  who,  by 
divine  authority  or  command,  collected  the  Psalms 
under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  and  arranged  them 
with  a  view  of  their  being  an  exclusive  system  of 
Psalmody  to  the  end  of  time.  The  designation  of  a 
particular  number  of  Psalms,  as  a  system  of  Psalm- 
ody for  the  church  in  all  ages,  implies  all  this.  And 
8 


86  PSALMODY. 

as  faith  is  founded  on  testimony,  then,  it  is  neces- 
sary for  our  faith  and  obedience  in  the  case,  that 
we  should  know  who  those  persons  were,  and  if 
they  were  divinely  appointed  to  that  office.  And  if 
their  names  cannot  be  ascertained,  yet  proof  that 
some  person  or  persons  were  thus  divinely  appoint- 
ed, is  indispensable  for  commanding  our  faith  and 
obedience  in  the  premises.  In  the  course  of  our 
reading,  we  have  met  with  some  writers  who  allege, 
that  the  book  of  Psalms  was  collected  and  arranged 
by  Ezra,  and  others,  that  this  was  done  by  a  man 
called  "  Simon  the  Just;"  but  we  know  nothing  more 
on  the  point.  Dr.  P.,  however,  speaks  so  positively 
on  the  subject,  as  leads  us  to  suppose  that  he  knows 
who  the  collectors  and  selectors  were,  and  can  pro- 
duce tlie  divine  command  for  their  doing  what  they 
did.  Our  own  limited  views  of  the  matter  have 
been,  that  the  Psalms  composed  by  David  and  Asaph 
for  the  service  of  the  temple  were  first  collected  as  a 
system  of  Psalmody  for  that  dispensation  of  grace, 
and  that  the  others  which  had  been  floating  in  the 
church  from  the  days  of  Moses,  and  had  the  impress 
of  divine  inspiration  upon  them,  were  added  in  pro- 
cess of  time,  but  by  whom  we  do  not  know.  But  it 
is  expected,  that  Dr.  P.,  who,  doubtless,  has  sounded 
this  subject  in  all  its  depths,  will,  out  of  his  be- 
nevolence, tell  us  all  about  it,  and  prove  it  too ; 
for  it  is  not  to  be  supposed,  that  a  Professor  of 
Theology  would  speak  so  jDOsitively  on  the  subject, 
without  being  able  to  produce  the  proof.  Thirdly, 
we  want  j^roof  that  the  book  of  Psalms  was  design- 
ed to  be  an  exclusive  system  of  Psalmody  to  the 
end  of  time.-  We  have  been  calling  for  the  proof 
for  nearly  twelve  months,  but  hitherto  we  have  called 
in  vain.  In  the  second  number  of  his  "remarks," 
Dr.  P.  promised  this  proof  as  he  "advanced." — 
When  we  read  the  following  words  in  the  third  number, 
"God  has  given  his   church    one   book    of  Psalms 


87 

only,"  we  thought  that  the  oft  requested,  and  long 
looked  for  proof  was  come  at  last,  but  as  we  pro- 
ceeded, we  found  that  we  had  nothing  for  it  but  his 
bare. assertion.  As  the  case  now  stands  we  must  ex- 
ercise patience  for  some  time  longer;  and  when  this 
proof  comes,  it  will  be  expected,  that  it  will  be  so  lu- 
cid, so  plain,  and  so  convincing  as  to  put  an  end  to 
the  controversy  forever. 

We  have  also  said  in  our  history  of  Psalmody, 
''that  the  Psalms  were  given  as  an  excellent  fund 
whence  the  church  might  draw,  in  future  ages,  much 
of  the  material  of  her  songs  of  praise."  We  have 
likewise  said,  "that  we  cannot  but  think,  that  the 
book  of  Psalms  was  further  designed  as  a  model  or 
pattern  for  framing  our  songs,  as  the  Lord's  prayer 
was  given  as  a  pattern  for  prayer,  and  supplication." 
This,  our  opponent  pronounces  bold  "  dogmatizing, 
and  drawing  largely  on  the  credulity  of  the  christian 
public,"  and  then  says,  that  he  '^  wants  proof  of  this 
from  the  word  of  God."  How  consistent  this  is  with 
his  own  conduct  in  this  controversy,  we  have  late- 
ly seen,  and  in  all  which  he  has  written  and  publish- 
ed on  this  subject — taking  the  main  question  for 
granted,  and  arguing  from  it  as  an  undoubted  truth. 
But  in  regard  to  the  above  quotations,  they  were  not 
offered  as  dogmas,  or  doctrines,  which  the  christian 
public  were  to  believe  on  this  subject,  but  simply  our 
own  opinions,  and  which  the  reader  miglit  receive  or 
reject  without  affecting  his  orthodoxy  on  the  point. — 
The  words  '^  we  cannot  hut  tlihik^^''  are  proof  positive, 
that  we  were  only  expressing  an  opinion,  and  surely 
a  man  may  express  a  private  opinion,  without  being 
arraigned  as  teaching  and  inculcating  erroneous  and 
dangerous  doctrines.  And  now,  let  the  reader  say, 
if  we  were  wrong  when  we  said,  that  this  discussion 
was  fast  descending,  on  the  part  of  our  opponent,  into 
trifling  cavils,  and  a  war  of  words. 
.Dr.  P.  closes  this  No.  of  his  "  Remarks,"  by  charg- 


88  PSALMODY. 

ing  us  with  saying,  "  that  he  takes  it  for  granted,  that 
the  hymns  and  spiritual  songs  which  have  been,  and 
are  in  the  church  are  the  inventions  of  the  composers, 
and  originated  from  them;"  whereas,  he  "  freely  admits 
that  there  are  some  uninspired  hymns  in  use,  which 
are  evangelical  as  to  their  matter."  Whether  design- 
ed or  not,  this  statement  is  not  only  deeply  sophistical, 
but  self-contradictory.  For  what  is  it  for  a  hymn  to  be 
evangelical  as  to  its  matter,  but  that  it  contains  inspired 
matter,  and  as  stated,  it  is  inspired,  and  uninspired  at 
the  same  time.  And  as  we  have  observed  elsewhere, 
it  is  the  prefixing  of  the  word  "  uninspired  "  before  the 
word  hymn,  that  has  thrown  a  darkening  and  terrifying 
atmosphere  around  the  subject  of  Psalmody,  to  the 
serious  but  undiscriminating  reader.  But  passing  this 
by,  we  have  said  as  above,  and  were  led  to  say  so, 
from  his  own  high  reprobating  language  of  hymns  as 
"  human  composure,  and  human  inventions,  in  the 
worship  of  God," — and  as  abhorrent  to  Jehovah,  as 
"  sacrificing  a  pig  instead  of  a  kid  "  of  old,  and  now, 
as  "  settting  up,  and  worshipping  pictures  and  images 
in  the  church."  To  this  may  be  added,  his  identify- 
ing singing  of  hymns  with  the  "strange  fire  which 
Nadab  and  Abihu  offered  before  the  Lord ;"  for 
although  he  has  disavowed  intending  to  convey  the 
idea  that  the  singers  are  liable  to  the  punishment  in- 
flicted on  these  presumptuous  young  men,  yet  he  has 
said  nothing  respecting  hymns  as  not  being  in  them- 
selves as  bad  as  the  strange  fire.  I^  we  have  erred, 
or  fallen  into  a  mistake  on  this  point,  his  own  high 
reprobating  language  and  illustrations  have  led  to  the 
mistake.  For  we  could  not  reconcile  such  language 
and  illustrations  with  the  idea  that  any  hymn  had  any 
thing  good  or  evangelical  in  it ;  more  especially  as  Mr. 
Reid,  w^hose  cause  he  has  espoused,  says,  that  hymns 
are  the  productions  of  the  composer's  "  own  hearts,"^ 
from  which  nothing  good  can  come.  Dr.  Pressly 
may  be  able  to  reconcile  these  things,  but  without  any 


HYPERBOLE    AXD    I^'CIVILITy.  S9 

design  or  disposition  to  be  witty,  we  confess — "  that 
we  cannot."  But  as  he  now  admits,  that  there  are 
some  hymns,  not  so  bad  as  Mr.  Reid's  language  and 
his  own  illustrations  seem  to  import;  courtesy,  and 
christian  charity  require  that  we  should  believe  him, 
and  not  charge  him  hereafter,  with  holding  that  all 
hymns  and  spiritual  songs  contain  nothing  but  the  ef- 
fusions of  the  human  heart.  But  although  he  admits 
that  there  are  evangelical  hymns  in  the  church,  he 
adds,  "  that  there  are  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands 
which  teach  error  in  all  its  various  forms."  ^ye  sup- 
pose that  he  is  speaking  hyperbolically  in  this  sent- 
ence ;  and  that  there  are  a  number  of  erroneous  hymns 
in  some  churches,  is  readily  admitted  ;  but  this  is  no 
more  an  argument  against  the  use  of  those  which  are 
sound  and  evangelical,  than  erroneous  Confessions  of 
Faith  are  against  the  use  and  importance  of  those  that 
are  orthodox  and  scriptural. 

•  And  here  we  would  observe,  that  self-respect  for- 
bids us  to  reply  particularly  to  the  following  language 
which  he  has  used  on  this  occasion — "  culpable  indo- 
lence of  mind  "—and  that  we  have  "  inhaled  so  much 
of  the  deleterious  atmosphere  thrown  around  the  sub- 
ject of  Psalmody,  as  not  to  understand  what  we  are 
writing  about."  Such  things  are  certainly  not  wit, 
and  we  do  not  choose  to  write  their  true  name.  They 
indicate  only  a  lack  of  argument,  and  when  preceded 
by  the  fulsome  epithets  of  "venerable  father,  and  ven- 
erable author,"  must  be  disgusting  to  every  reader  of 
the  least  taste  and  discernment. 

We  will  close  this  number  by  observing  farther, 
that  as  Dr.  P.  and  ourselves  have  been  setthng  what 
he  calls  our  "  accounts  current,"  and  as  he  has  ad- 
dressed us  personally,  and  "  gently  whispered  some 
things  into  our  ear,"  we  will  address  him  personally 
also.  And  now  Rev.  Brother,  we  would  gently 
"  whisper  into  your  ear,"  that  there  is  a  small  item  of 
debt  due  to  us,  which  we  think,  you  should  settle  as 
S* 


90  PSALMODY. 

soon  as  possible.  We  allude  to  your  attempt  to  place 
us  in  a  false  position  in  this  discussion,  by  misrepre- 
senting our  sentiments  on  Psalmody  in  the  first  num- 
ber of  your  "  Review."  Justice  to  ourselves  required 
that  we"  should  notice  it,  nor  did  we  intend  to  advert 
to  it  again.  But,  of  your  own  accord,  you  brought  it 
again  before  the  public  eye  in  the  first  number  of  your 
"  Remarks,"  and  added  injury  to  injury,  by  attempt- 
ing to  convince  your  readers,  that  our  charge  against 
you  for  misrepresenting  us,  was  a  misrepresentation  of 
yourself.  Self-defence  required  that  we  should  nail 
down  our  charge  upon  you,  and  which  we  did,  and 
we  think  irremoveably  too.  Now,  justice  to  us,  and 
a  regard  for  your  own  reputation,  require  that  you 
should  give  such  an  explanation  of  these  circumstances, 
as  may  be  satisfactory ;  and  if  you  do  not,  we  need 
not  tell  you,  in  what  point  of  light  you  must  and  will 
be  considered  as  a  controversialist.  This  is  our  third 
lesson,  and  we  hope  that  we  will  not  be  under  the  ne- 
cessity of  giving  you  a  fourth. 

We  see  that  you  have  published  the  note  which  we 
sent  you,  with  your  answer,  in  regard  to  pubhshing 
our  numbers  on  Psalmody  in  your  "Preacher."  We 
have  not  complained  that  you  refused  to  do  so  ;  for  it 
is  admitted  that  every  editor  has  an  exclusive  control 
over  his  own  Journal.  But  we  complain  that  your 
apology  for  not  publishing  them  is  evasive  and  de- 
ceptive ;  for  neither  ourselves  or  friends  claim,  or  have 
any  control  over  Mr.  Annan's  "  Presbyterian  Advo- 
cate."    Open  honesty  is  the  best  policy. 


THE    GREAT    PRECEPT.  91 

NO.  X. 


Precejuive  iiroof  for  an  Evangelical  Psalmodij,  from 
Col.  3  :  16,  17,  defended. 

It  may  not  be  amiss  to  state  again  the  question  be- 
tween Dr.  Pressly  and  ourselves,  in  this  controversy. 
Dr.  P.  contends,  that  in  the  praises  of  God  the  church 
should  confine  herself  to  the  book  of  Psalms.     On  the 
other  hand,  we  think  that  every  suitable  portion  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments  may  be  employed  in  that 
part  of  divine  worship,  as  well  as  in  preaching  and 
praying.     Although  repeatedly  called   upon   for   the 
proof  of  his  proposition,  he  has  hitherto  withheld  it, 
and  yet  in  the  third  number  of  his  review  he  called 
upon  us  for  the  proof  of  our  own.     This  we  gave  in 
the  fourth  number  of  our  defence,   and   he  has  as- 
sailed it  in  the  fourth  number  of  his  remarks.     Our 
proof  was  taken  from  Eph.  5  :  19,  and  Col  3  :  16. 
In  this  last  passage  the  Apostle  says — "  Let  the  word 
of  Christ  dwell  in  you  richly  in  all  wisdom,   teaching 
and  admonishing  one  another  in  Psalms  and  hymns 
and  spiritual  songs,  singing  with  grace  in  your  hearts 
to  the  Lord."     From  this  passage  we  argued  in  the 
first  place,  that  the  phrase — "  The  word  of  Christ," 
when  taken  in  connection  with  2  Tim.  3  :  16, — "All 
scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profit- 
able for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  in- 
struction  in  righteousness,"   establishes  the  fact  that 
we  may  take  our  songs  of  praise  from  both  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments.     Our  inference  was  founded  on 
the  circumstance,  that  as  in  2  Tim.  3  :  16,  "all  scrip- 
ture is  said  to  be  given  for  doctrine,  so  in  Col.  3  :  16 
Christians  are  enjoined  to  teach  one  another  in  Psalms 
and  hymns  and  spiritual  songs,  from  the  word  of  Christ 
or  the  gospel  of  Christ."     The  reader  will  have  ob- 


92  PSALMODY. 

served  that  in  both  passages  it  is  said  that  the  doctrines 
to  be  taught  are  to  be  taken  from  the  whole  of  the  in- 
spired volume. 

And  how  now  does  om*  opponent  meet,  and  try  to 
overturn  this  argument.  He  separates  the  two  pas- 
sages from  which  we  have  argued  in  connection,  and 
frames  a  couple  of  syllogisms  from  2  Tim.  3  :  16  it- 
self, and  palms  them  upon  us  as  deducible  from  our 
reasoning.  The  first  is,  "  that  as  the  scriptures  are 
inspired,  therefore  uninspired  men  may  prepare  songs 
for  the  use  of  the  church,  to  use  in  the  worship  of 
God."  The  second  is  lilve  the  first — "  That  as  all 
scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profit- 
able for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction  and  in- 
struction in  righteousness,  therefore  every  man  who 
comes  under  a  poetic  impulse  has  a  right  to  compose 
songs  to  be  employed  in  the  worship  of  God."  Now, 
we  have  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  these  syllogisms. 
They  belong  exclusively  to  Pr.  P.,  and  he  may  do 
with  them,  whatever  seemeth  best  in  his  own  eyes. — 
For  we  have  not  argued  at  all  in  favor  of  an  evangeli- 
cal Psalmody  from  2  Tim.  3:16,  by  itself,  and  he 
could  not  but  know  that  we  did  not.  But  as  already 
observed,  we  have  argued  for  it,  from  that  passage, 
and  Col.  3  :  16,  taken  in. connection,  from  their  being 
parallels  in  some  important  respects,  and  our  reason- 
ing was  as  above.  That  as  the  apostle  says  in  the 
first  of  those  passages,  "that  all  scripture  was  given 
by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine," 
and  in  the  other,,  that  christians  "  are  to  teach  one 
another  in  Psalms  and  hymns  and  spiritual  songs,"  it 
follows  by  inevitable  consequence  that  those  hymns 
and  spiritual  songs  are  to  be  taken  from  the  new  and 
old  Testament  alike.  If  there  was  anything  defective 
in  our  inference,  it  was  fair  in  him  to  point  it  out,  and 
thereby  destroy  its  force.  But  it  seems  he  found  this 
to  be  rather  a  hard  task,  and  as  he  must  say  something 
to  keep  up  the  spirits  of  his  friends,  he  resorted  to 


OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    PRECEPT.  93 

what,  we  are  persuaded,  every  discerning  reader  will 
say,  was  neither  honest  nor  honorable. 

A  second  argument  for  an  evangelical  Psalmody 
was  drawn  from  the  necessary  meaning  of  the  phrase, 
"  The  word  of  Christ"  itself  in  Col.  3  :  16,  and  its 
necessary  connection  with  singhig  Psalms,  hymns  and 
spiritual  songs.  It  was  observed  that  the  injunction 
of  "  teaching  and  admonishing  one  another  in  Psalms 
and  hymns  and  spiritual  songs  "  looked  back  to  some 
antecedent,  whence  the  Colossians  and  other  churches 
were  to  teach  one  another.  That  "the  word  of  Christ" 
was  this  antecedent,  and  that  its  necessary  meaning  in 
this  place  referred  to  the  New  Testament,  whence 
those  hymns  and  spiritual  songs  were  to  be  drawn  in 
an  especial  manner. 

To  this  our  opponent  objects,  that  in  our  "  Inquiry" 
we  have  said  that  the  phrase  refers  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment exclusively,  and  thence  he  infers  an  inconsisten- 
cy in  coupling  it  with  2  Tim.  3  :  16.  We  readily 
admit  that  the  word  "  exclusively"  is  too  strong  for 
the  idea  which  we  intended  to  convey,  and  in  the  4th 
number  of  our  defence  we  changed  it  into  the  words 
— "in  an  especial  manner."  Dr.  P.  saw  this  in  that 
number,  and  we  are  sorry  to  have  it  to  say  that  he 
had  not  the  candor  to  say  so.  And  now  we  adopt 
the  language  of  the  Rev.  John  Brown,  in  his  diction- 
ary of  the  Bible,  under  the  term  "  word."  Speaking 
of  its  second  meaning,  he  says  :  "And  chiefly  the 
gospel  is  the  word  of  Christ,  as  he  is  the  author,  sub- 
ject-matter, and  end  of  it.  Col.  3  :  16."  This  is  an 
authority  to  w^hich,  we  expect,  Dr.  P.  will  not  object, 
as  that  great  and  good  man  was  one  of  his  ecclesiasti- 
cal fathers. 

Our  opponent  also  objects,  "that  it  is  an  instance 
of  great  temerity,  not  to  say  of  unwarranted  presump- 
tion, to  take  up  a  phrase  which  occurs  but  once  in  the 
Bible,  and  impose  upon  it  an  interpretation  to  suit  a 
favorite  hypothesis."     All  Trinitarians  are  guilty  of 


94  PSALMODY. 

this  temerity  and  presum23tion,  for  they  "take  up" 
the  words — "  these  three  are  one  "  in  1  John  5:7, 
as  proof  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  these 
words  are  not  found  in  any  other  part  of  the  Bible. 
Besides,  the  words  of  the  perplexing  phrase  are  not 
dark,  or  ambiguous,  but  clearly  import  the  same  thing 
as  *'  the  word  of  the  gospel,"  or  "  the  gospel  of 
Christ."  And  we  have  said,  that  although  it  has  spe- 
cial reference  to  the  New  Testament,  it  yet  embraces 
"  all  the  doctrines,  precepts,  and  promises  of  the  old." 
He  also  spends  some  time  in  j^roving  what  we  never 
disbelieved,  and  which  has  no  relevancy  to  the  point 
in  hand,  that  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  alike 
the  word  of  God. 

And  here  we  would  remark  farther,  that  the  Apostle, 
in  his  epistles,  when  speaking  of  the  scriptures,  styles 
tliem,  between  ten  and  twenty  times,  "  The  word  of 
God."  In  the  present  passage  which  we  are  now 
examining,  he  styles  them  "  the  word  of  Christ,"  in 
connection  with  the  duty  of  singing  Psalms,  hymns, 
and  spiritual  songs.  Now,  can  any  man  account  for 
tliis  departure  from  his  usual  phraseology,  in  this  pas- 
sage, but  that  he  designed  to  inform  us  that  our  songs 
of  praise  are  to  be  taken  from  the  New  Testament  in 
an  especial  manner.  And  to  this  we  would  add,  that 
had  Dr.  P.  proved,  or  could  he  prove,  that  the  phrase 
"  The  word  of  Christ,"  meant  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
taments, without  any.  special  reference  to  the  New, 
what  would  it  prove  ?  This  only,  that  we  are  to  draw 
our  songs  of  praise  to  God  from  both,  and  this  is  vir- 
tually all  we  ever  contended  for,  or  now  contend.  Is 
there  a  reader  of  plain  common  sense  who  does  not 
see  this ;  and  that  all  he  has  said  now  and  formerly 
on  this  point  is  nothing  but  "  beating  the  air." 

A  third  argument  for  a  gospel  Psalmody  was  de- 
duced from  the  injunction  to  "  teach  and  admonish 
one  another  in  Psalms  and  hymns  and  spiritual  songs, 
singing  with  grace  in  your  hearts  to  the  Lord."     Dr. 


VARIOUS    INTERPRETATIONS.  95 

P.  says  that  the  apostle's  object  in  the  passage  was 
only  to  enjoin  singing  the  praises  of  God  with  suitable 
affections.  That  was  indeed  one  object,  as  expressed 
in  the  last  clause — "  singing  with  grace  in  your  hearts 
to  the  Lord."  But  the  Colossians  were  enjoined  to 
teach  one  another  in  Psalms,  &c.,  and  the  question 
now  is,  how  were  they  thus  to  teach  one  another ;  for 
we  need  scarcely  say  that  the  duty  was  distinct  from 
that  of  singing.  In  our  4th  number  we  mentioned 
three  different  interpretations  of  this  injunction  which 
we  had  read  and  heard  of,  and  then  left  it  with  the 
reader  to  choose  that  which  appeared  most  agreeable 
to  the  drift  and  design  of  the  Apostle,  for  we  have  not 
heard  of  a  fourth.  The  first  is  that  of  some  commen- 
tators who  think  that  the  apostle  in  those  words  enjoins 
it  upon  those  who  could  read  to  teach  those  who 
could  not,  by  reading  or  repeating  to  them  portions  of 
the  Psalms.  This  we  rejected,*because  as  the  Psalms 
are  comparatively  obscure,  and  speak  of  the  Saviour  as 
yet  to  come  :  the  apostle  would  have  rather  recom- 
mended the  New  Testament  scriptures,  which  speak 
of  the  Saviour  as  come,  and  of  the  way  of  salvation  by 
faith  in  his  blood.  The  second  is  the  opinion  of  those 
who  think  that  in  the  above  words  the  apostle  enjoins 
it  on  Ministers  to  exj^lain  the  Psalm  to  the  people  be- 
fore they  sing  it,  "  that  they  may  sing  with  the  under- 
standing," or  understand  what  they  sing.  This  we 
also  reject,  because  its  advocates  take  it  for  granted 
that  the  book  of  Psalms  was  designed  as  an  exclusive 
system  of  Psalmody  for  the  church,  but  this  has  not 
as  yet  been  proved.  The  third  is,  that  those  who 
have  qualifications  for  composing  hymns  or  spiritual 
songs  for  the  use  of  the  church,  should  enrich  them 
well  from  "  the  word  of  Christ"  or  the  gospel  of 
Christ,  in  its  doctrines,  precepts  and  promises.  This 
we  prefer  until  we  meet  with  a  better,  but  against  it 
Dr.  P.  raises  the  following  objections.  He  says  that 
the  qualifications   which  we  allege  as  necessary  for 


96  PSALMODY. 

composing  a  hymn  or  spiritual  song  may  be  transferred 
to  the  duties  mentioned  in  the  preceding  verses. — 
These  duties  are — "  setting;  tlie  affections  on  thinps 
above,  v.  2 — mortifying  our  members  which  are  upon 
the  earth,  v.  5 — and  not  being  one  to  another,  v.  9." 
He  has  transferred  and  prefixed  the  word  "  quahfied  " 
to  those  duties,  and  produced  a  reading,  ludicrous 
enough.  But,  in  the  name  of  common  sense,  what 
have  these  duties  to  do  with  the  duties  mentioned  in 
the  16th  verse,  of  "  teaching  one  another  in  psalms, 
hymns,  and  spiritual  songs."  A  knowledge  of  the 
doctrines  of  the  gospel,  and  of  the  true  meaning  of 
any  portion  of  the  scriptures  to  be  versified,  are  neces- 
sary qualifications  for  composing  a  useful  hymn,  or 
spiritual  song  ;  but  are  they  necessary  for  discharging 
the  preceding  duties?  We  think  that  there  is  not  a 
discerning  person  who  will  read  this  objection,  but 
will  be  constrained  to  say,  that  it  is  not  only  utterly 
irrelevant  to  the  point  in  hand,  but  all  over  contempti- 
ble. 

2.  He  objects  also,  that  the  scriptural  knowledge 
of  the  Colossians  was  very  limited,  as  they  had  but 
lately  emerged  "  from  thick  darkness  and  superstition 
of  Pagan  Idolatry,"  and  that  the  writings  of  the  New 
Testament  had  not  been  completed,  and  those  which 
were  in  existence  were  accessible  to  few.  At  what 
time  they  were  converted  to  the  christian  faith,  we 
are  not  told:  but  according  to  Dr.  Scott's  chronology, 
the  epistle  sent  to  them  by  Paul  was  in  the  year  64  ; 
and  this  was  31  years  after  the  commencement  of  the 
christian  era.  Besides,  Dr.  P.  tells  us,  "that  they 
were  acquainted  with  the  book  of  Psalms  in  which 
there  are  a  variety  of  sacred  poems,  bearing-  the  titles 
of  Psalms,  and  hymns."  From  these  considerations, 
it  would  seem,  that  they  were  not  so  ignorant  and  un- 
qualified for  composing  others,  as  he  at  first  represents 
them.  But  it  matters  not  as  to  the  objection  whether 
any  of  them  composed  a  spiritual  song,  or  not ;  for  it 


TALENT    FOR   POETRY.     .  97 

should  be  borne  in  mind,  that  the  apostoUc  injunction, 
whatever  it  meant,  was  not  given  to  the  church  of 
Colosse  alone,  but  to  the  church  in  all  future  ages  to 
the  end  of  time.  It  is  in  this  point  of  light  that  we 
have  considered  it  in  this  discussion  and  when  view- 
ed in  this  light,  the  objection  has  no  bearing  what- 
ever. 

3.  Dr.  P.  has  another  objection  to  our  interpre- 
tation of  the  words  "teaching  one  another  in  Psalms, 
hymns,  and  spiritual  songs,"  and  on  which  he  places 
considerable  stress.  It  is  founded  in  the  circumstance, 
"that  a  talent  for  writing  poetry  is  one  of  those  natural 
gifts,  which  God  has  conferred  on  comparatively  few." 
In  reply  to  this,  we  would  observe,  that  Poets  are  in- 
ventors, and  a  great  power  of  invention  is  one  of  the 
distinguishing  characteristics  of  great  Poets,  as  Ho- 
mer, Virgil  and  Milton.  Sometimes  they  invent  the 
story  on  which  the  poem  is  founded,  and  if  the  sto- 
ry must  be  radically  true,  they  invent,  if  not  the  whole 
yet  the  greatest  number  of  its  incidents.  The  object- 
ion, would  seem  to  take  it  for  granted,  and  indeed  Mr. 
Reid  expressly  says  so,  that  the  subject  matter  of 
hymns  and  spiritual  songs  originate  in  "the  hearts  of 
the  composers."  And  notwithstanding  Dr.  P.  has  said 
"that  there  are  some  uninspired  hymns  that  are  evan- 
gelical as  to  their  matter;" — a  self-contradictory  pro- 
position, by  the  bye — yet  the  objection  would  seem 
to  import  that  the  subject-matter  was  invented  by  the 
composers.  But  the  subject-matter  of  an  evangelical 
hymn  was  invented  by  infinite  wisdom,  is  revealed  in 
his  inspired  word,  and  all  the  invention  necessary  in  a 
composer  is,  to  arrange  that  inspired  matter  so  as  to 
fit  it  to  be  sung  in  the  praises  of  God.  And  is  "this 
as  unreasonable  as  the  conduct  of  Pharaoh,  who 
would  not  supply  the  Israelites  with  straw  to  make 
brick,  and  yet  rigorously  exacted  the  full  tale  of 
brick?"  For  surely  it  does  not  require- any  extraor- 
dinary talents  to  arrange  the  hnes  of  a  hymn  into  a 
9 


9S  PSALMODY. 

certain  number  of  syllables,  or  poetic  feet,  as  they  are 
called.  And  whatever  difficulty  may  arise  to  us  who 
look  for  what  is  called  rhyme,  neither  Jews,  nor  Greeks, 
nor  Romans  were  so  fettered.  It  required  only  a 
correct  knowledge  of  the  meaning  of  the  portion  of 
scripture  to  be  versified;  and  is  not  this  attainable 
without  any  poetic  inspiration,  or  "  afflatus"  as  it  is  called. 
And  if  it  is  said  that  the  composer  may  mistake  the  mean- 
ing of  the  portions  of  scripture  which  he  versifies,  so  may 
translators,  and  so  may  preachers;  but  is  that  an  ar- 
gument against  the  translation  of  the  scriptures,  and 
the  preaching  of  the  word.  The  objection,  then,  is 
founded  on  what  Logicians  call  ^'•ignoratio  clenclii^^'' 
or  an  ignorance  of  the  subject,  or  of  the  true  state  of 
the  question. 

4.  In  the  3d  No.  of  his  Review,  Dr.  P.  produced 
with  some  degree  of  pomp,  the  Hebrew  -  words, 
"Mizmorim,  Tehillim,  Shirim," — Psalms,  hymns, 
songs,  as  proof  that  there  are  in  the  book  oi  Psalms, 
three  distinct  kinds  of  sacred  composition,  and  that 
the  Apostle  alluded  to  these  in  Col.  3:  16.  In  our 
4th  No.  we  showed  that  in  the  Septuagint  translation 
of  the  book  of  Psalms,  sometimes  two,  sometimes 
three  of  those  words  are  in  the  titles  of  some  Psalms, 
and  consequently  that  the  alleged  division  and  distinc- 
tion is  fancied  and  false.  This  has  lowered  his  tone 
on  this  point,  and  brought  him  to  acknowledge  "that 
it  is  a  matter  of  no  consequence  to  his  argument,  what 
is  the  distinctive  import  of  these  different  terms."  And 
it  w*as  prudent  in  him  to  do  so  ;  for  so  far  as  we  know, 
the  Jewish  writers  never  mention  the  division  and  dis- 
tinction alleged  by  him  and  others  ;  and  that  the  above 
words  are  synonymous,  importing  the  same  thing  as 
Ode  and  Song  with  us.  The  division  and  distinction, 
then,  belong  to  the  Apostle  Paul,  and  in  our  opinion, 
by  Psalms  he  alludes  to  the  book  of  Psalms,  and  by 
hymns  and  spiritual  songs,  other  portions  of  the  divine 
word,  versified  for  praising  him  who  hath  graciously 


THE    FOURTH    ARGUMENT.  99 

given  us  the  New  as  well  as  the  Old  Testament  scrip- 
tures. And  to  this  we  would  add,  that  the  jihrase 
"  spiritual  songs  "  is  not  once  mentioned  in  the  book 
of  Psalms,  but  is  peculiar  to  the  New  Testament,  and 
the  New  Testament  dispensation  of  grace,  emphatically 
called,  "  the  ministration  of  the  Spirit."  This  circum- 
stance is  entitled  to  no  small  weight  in  this  controversy. 
A  fourth  argument  for  a  gospel  Psalmody,  was  de- 
duced from  the  words  of  the  seventeenth  verse,  "what- 
soever ye  do  in  word  or  in  deed,  do  all  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord  Jesus,  giving  thanks  to  God  and  the  father 
by  him."  In  unfolding  this  argument  it  was  observed, 
that  there  is  no  access  to  an  infinitely  holy  and  just 
God,  but  through  a  mediator.  That  this  cardinal 
doctrine  was  included  in  these  words,  but  that  we  are 
convinced  from  the  phraseology  itself,  and  from  a 
parallel  phraseology  in  John  16  :  24,  that  the  iVpostle 
meant  something  more  by  them,  than  merely  approach- 
ing God  through  a  mediator.  The  words  in  John  are 
the  words  of  Christ  himself  to  his  disciples.- — "  Hith- 
erto ye  have  asked  nothing  in  my  name."  It  was 
then  asked,  what  did,  or  could  Christ  mean  by  these 
words  ?  Did  he,  or  could  he  mean,  that  they  had 
nev^r. prayed  to  God,  through  a  mediator?  No — ^for 
there  is  no  acceptable  access  to  God,  but  through  the 
mediation  of  another.  His  meaning  therefore  must  be, 
that  they  had  not  prayed  to  God  in  his  name,  as  "  The 
Mediator;"  and  it  was  again  asked,  "who  does  not 
see,  that  it  is  one  thing  to  approach  God  through  a 
Mediator,  held  out  in  .the  Old  Testament  in  a  general 
revelation  and  promise,  and  another  thing  to  approach 
him  in  the  name  of  a  particular  pei-son  as  that  Jledia- 
tor,  and  '  the  only  Mediator  between  God  and  INFan.'  " 
From  this  was  drawn. the  obvious  inference,  that  the 
duty  of  praising  God  in  Psalms,  hymns,  and  spiritual 
songs,  cannot  be  discharged  in  the  full  meaning  of  the 
Apostle,  by  confining  ourselves  to  the  book  of  Psalms, 
but  in  songs  recognizing  Jesus  as  "the  mediator  of  the 
'NeAY  Covenant,"  and  who  hadi  purchased  the  church 


100  PSALMODY. 

with  his  own  blood."  And  to  this  was  added  the 
declaration  to  the  church  by  the  Apostle  in  Phil.  2  :  9, 
10  ;  "  that  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should 
bow,  of  things  in  heaven,  and  things  in  earth,  and 
things  under  the  earth ;  and  that  every  tongue  should 
confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God 
the  Father." 

Dr.  P's.  remark  on  the  preceding  statement,  is  truly 
astonishing.  He  represents  us  as  teaching  "  that  be- 
lievers under  the  Old  Testament  approached  God,  they 
knew  not  through  whom.  It  was  through  a  mediator 
held  out  through  the  general  revelation  and  promise, 
but  who  this  mediator  was,  it  seems  they  knew  not.  We 
have  observed  in  our  fourth  number  that  the  mediator 
was  made  known  in  the  Old  Testament  under  the  ap- 
pellations of  "  Shiloh,  Messiah,  Son  of  God,  and  Da- 
vid's Lord  ;"  but  did  they  know,  or  could  they  possi- 
bly know,  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  the  mediator, 
until  he  was  manifested  in  the  flesh,  had  they  even 
lived  until  that  day.  He  says  also,  "if  the  author's 
views  on  this  subject  are  correct,  it  would  seem,  it 
might  be  said  of  the  eminent  believers  who  lived  be- 
fore the  incarnation  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  our  Lord  said  of 
the  Samaritans,  "  ye  worship,  ye  know  not  what."  And 
could  they  not,  and  did  they  not  believe  in,  and  wor- 
ship him  as  "  The  Son  of  God,"  exhibited  as  such  in 
the  second  Psalm.  But  as  said,  had  they  also  lived 
to  that  day,  how  possibly  could  they  have  believed  in 
Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  promised  mediator, 
until  they  had  seen  the  characteristics  of  a  mediator  in 
his  life,  doctrines,  miracles  and  death.  And  as  j^roof 
that  Abraham  had  as  clear  a  view,  as  we  have,  that 
Jesus  was  the  promised  Messiah,  he  adduces  the  words 
of  Christ  himself — "Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my  day, 
and  saw  it,  and  was  glad."  And  how  did  that  Patri- 
arch see  his  day  ?  Was  it  not  by  the  eye  of  faith, 
and  he  saw  it  as  substantially  and  clearly  (Heb.  12  :  1,) 
as  if  he  had  seen  it  with  the  eye  of  the  flesh,  because 
of  the  unchangeable  character  of  Him  who  had  prom- 


OBVIOUS  DISTINCTION.  101 

ised,  "that  in  his  seed  all  nations  of  the  earth  should 
be  blessed."  This  is  the  import  of  the  passage,  and 
to  apply  it  in  any  other  way,  is  preposterous,  and  dis- 
torting it  from  its  real  meaning.  It  seems  that  our 
saying  that  it  is  one  thing  to  approach  God  through  a 
mediator  held  out  in  the  Old  Testament  in  a  general 
revelation  and  promise,  and  another  thing  to  approach 
him  in  the  name  of  a  particular  person  as  that  medi- 
ator, is  what  has  perplexed  and  bewildered  Dr.  P.  on 
this  subject,  "  and  he  asks  the  Doctors  of  the  Presby- 
terian church,  if  this  is  the  Theology  of  the  Bible,  or 
of  the  Confession  of  Faith."  We  cannot  answer  for 
others,  but  for  ourselves  we  will  say,  that  we  do  not 
think  there  is  a  D.  D.  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  so 
superficial  a  Theologian  as  not  to  see  that  the  distinc- 
tion is  clear  and  scriptural.  Perhaps  Dr.  P.  himself 
would  see  it,  if  connected  with  any  other  subject  than 
that  of  Psalmody.  We  suspect  that  it  is  not  so  much 
the  doctrine  itself  he  dislikes,  as  the  consequences  fol- 
lowing from  it,  legitimately  demanding  a  song  of  praise 
to  Him  "  who  loved  us,  and  washed  us  from  our  sins 
in  his  own  blood,  to  make  us  kings  and  priests  to  God 
and  his  father,  to  whom  belongs  the  glory  and  domin^ 
ion,  forever  and  ever." 

From  the  whole,  we  think  we  may  safely  say,  that 
our  four  arguments  for  a  Gospel  Psalmody,  deduced 
from  Col.  3  :  16,  17,  have  not  been  answered  by  Dr. 
Pressly.  We  have  no  doubt  but  that  he  put  forth  all 
his  strength  on  this  occasion,  as  the  credit  and  curren- 
cy of  his  restricted  views  depended  very  much  on  his 
success ;  but  he  found  those  verses,  particularly  the 
phrase  "  The  w^ord  of  Christ,"  too  stubborn  to  bend 
to  his  exclusive  system.  But  it  may  be  necessary  to 
observe  here,  that  we  do  not  consider,  nor  have  we 
offered  our  third  argument  as  a  positive  preceptive 
proof  in  the  case,  but  only  as  highly  probable,  but  the 
other  three  we  offer  as  positive,  and  unanswerable. 


102  PSALMODY, 


NO.  XL 


Charges  of  Misrejyresentation  rebelled — Mental  human 
com])08ure  sung  by  the  Associate  Reformed  Church, 

Although  Dr.  Pressly  had  promised  m  die  second 
number  of  his  "Remarks"  diat  as  he  "advanc- 
ed," he  would  produce  die  proof  of  his  main  propo- 
sition, "  that  the  church  is  to  confine  herself  to  the 
book  of  Psalms,  in  singing  the  praises  of  God,"  he 
has  published  three  numbers  since  that  time,  but  not 
an  iota  of  proof,  nor  even  an  allusion  to  the  important 
point,  is  to  be  found  in  either  of  them.  The  last  of 
these.  No.  5,  is  occupied  with  an  objection  to  one  of 
our  arguments  for  a  gospel  Psalmody,  and  tvvo  or 
three  strange  complaints  against  ourselves.  We  have 
said,  as  he  states,  "  that  the  Psalms  speak  of  a  Saviour 
to  come,  therefore  they  are  not  suited  to  the  use  of 
the  church,  since  the  Saviour  has  now  come."  To 
this  he  replies,  "  that  it  so  happens  that  everywhere 
throughout  the  book  of  Psalms,  the  Saviour  is  present- 
ed to  our  view  as  already  to  come,"  and  in  proof  he 
refers  us  to  the  2d,  22d,  and  6Sth  Psalms.  The  Sa- 
viour is  indeed  exhibited  in  the  2d  Psalm  as  the  Son 
of  God,  but  it  "so  happens  "  that  the  promise  of  the 
Father  to  him  is  not  in  the  past  or  present,  but  in  the 
future  tense,  or  time.  "  Thou  shalt  break  them  with 
a  rod  of  iron,  thou  shalt  dash  them  in  pieces  like  a 
potter's  vessel."  Christ  is  also  exhibited  in  the  22d 
Psalm  as  a  suffering,  and  in  the  68th  as  a  risen  and 
exalted  Saviour.  But  who  does  not  know  that  it  was 
usual  with  the  prophets  to  represent  future  persons, 
times,  and  things  as  present,  because  of  the  unchan- 
geable character  of  the  predictor  or  promiser,  and  to 
impress  our  minds  more  deeply  with  the  unfailing  cer- 
tainty of  the  prediction.  Thus  it  is  said  in  Isa.  9  :  6, 
"  that  unto  us  is  a  child  born,  unto  us  a  son  is  given," 


A    SAVIOUR    YET    TO    COME.  103 

when  at  the  same  thiie  the  administration  of  his  king- 
dom of  grace,  as  it  respects  the  present  dispensation, 
is  represented  as  future — *'  and  the  government  shall 
be.  on  his  shouMer."  And  that  Christ  is  not  always 
represented  in  the  Psalms  as  having  suffered  for  sin, 
and  exalted  to  God's  right  hand,  as  that  this  shall  be 
the  case,  is  evident  from  the  last  verse  of  the  110th 
Psalm,  where  he  is  spoken  of  as  a  suffering  and  ex- 
alted Saviour.  He  sliall  drink  of  the  brook  by  the 
way,  therefore  he  shall  lift  up  the  head.  And  now 
we  appeal  to  every  reader,  we  appeal  to  Dr.  P.  him- 
self, if  the  Messiah  is  not  praised  in  these  Psalms  as 
a  Saviour  who  was  to  come,  and  our  argument  for  an 
evangelical  Psalmody  derived  from  that  circumstance, 
is  firm  and  untouched.  We  confess  that  we  were 
astonished  at  a  question  which  he  asks  us  on  this  point, 
as  coming  from  a  man  who  has  been  in  the  ministry 
for  a  considerable  number  of  years,  and  who  has  made 
an  exclusive  use  of  the  book  of  Psalms  in  the  praises 
of  God  during  that  time.  He  asks  us  where  in  the 
book  of  Psalms  is  the  Saviour  spoken  of  as  yet  to 
come,  and  adds,  "  when  you  lift  up  your  pen  again,  will 
you  be  so  good  as  to  mention  the  Psalm  and  the  verse 
where  the  Redeemer  is  spoken  of  as  one  who  is  yet 
to  come."  We  cheerfully  comply  with  the  request, 
and  now  tell  him  that  besides  the  Psalms  now^  ad- 
duced, in  the  40th  Psalm  and  7th  verse,  the  Redeem- 
er is  introduced  as  saying  to  his  Father — "  Lo,  I 
come  in  the  volume  of  the  book  that  is  vrritten  of  me, 
I  delight  to  do  thy  will,  O  my  God :  yea  thy  law^  is 
Avithin  my,  heart."  And  as  this  has  a  mighty  bearing 
on  the  point  at  issue,  and  may  have  a  salutary  effect 
on  Dr.  P.  himself,  we  will  present  him  with  another. 
In  the  llSth  Psalm,  26th  verse,  the  Redeemer  is  thus 
characterised — "  Blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord,  we  have  blessed  you  out  of  the  house  of 
the  Lord."  And  now  we  would  ask,  if  the  coming  of 
Christ  is  spoken  of  in  these  verses  as  past,  or  future 


104  PSALMODY. 

to  the  time  in  which  the  promises  were  given — a  thou- 
sand years  at  least  before  his  incarnation  and  birth. 
Every  boy  and  girl  can  answer  the  question,  and  these 
passages  of  themselves  should  decide  the  point  in  de- 
bate, if  there  was  nothing  else. 

And  to  this  we  would  add,  that  as  there  is  no  ac- 
ceptable approach  to  God  but  through  a  Mediator,  it 
is  therefore  of  the  last  moment  to  know  who  this  me- 
diator is,  and  if  he  is  come  into  our  world,  or  is  yet 
to  come.  As  observed  in  a  former  number,  the 
Apostle  John  thought  this  point  an  all-important  one, 
and  accordingly  says,  1  Ep.  4  :  5,  "  Every  Spirit  that 
confesseth  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh, 
is  not  of  God."  He  had  his  eye,  no  doubt,  on  the 
Jews  who  denied  that  Jesus  of  Nazrareth  was  the 
promised  Messiah  and  Mediator  between  God  and 
man.  We  do  not  charge  Dr.  P.  or  his  friends  with 
denying  that  the  Redeemer  is  come  in  the  flesh,  but 
we  would  respectfully  and  affectionately  ask  them  if 
they  do  not  deny  the  doctrine  in  practice,  when  they 
sing  those  portions  of  the  Psalms  to  which  we  have 
adverted,  unless  they  substitute  in  mind  the  past  for 
the  future  tense.  Certain  it  is  to  ourselves  that  John 
with  his  principles  would  not,  could  not,  sing  them 
literally  as  they  are.  There  are  many  other  Psalms, 
however,  that  may  be  sung  by  us  literally  and  profita- 
bly. 

The  objection  "  that  if  the  Psalms  are  not  suitable 
to  be  sung  in  the  j^raises  of  God,  it  is  not  proper  that 
they  should  be  read  in  the  worship  of  God,"  is  really 
silly.  According  to  our  opponent's  system  of  Psalm- 
ody, "  The  Song  of  Solomon  "  is  not  fit  to  be  sung  in 
the  praises  of  God,  then  his  reasoning  will  prove  that 
it  is  not  fit  to  be  read  in  his  worship.  The  Church  is 
one  and  indivisible  in  all  the  dispensations  of  Grace. 
And  may  there  not  be  some  ordinances  and  means  of 
grace  suitable  in  one  dispensation  that  are  not  suited 
to  another,  while  there  are  some  things  in  each  which 


DR.    P.'S    MURMURS.  105 

are  suited  to  every  dispensation.  This  is  the  case 
with  the  book  of  Psahns,  in  respect  to  singing  the 
praises  of  God.  Whatever  in  them  is  doctrinal,  pre- 
ceptive, or  devotional,  is  suitable  to  be  sung  in  the 
praises  of  God  to  the  end  of  time,  while  all  that  re- 
spects Jewish  rites  and  sacrifices,  and  the  time  of  the 
coming  of  Christ,  is  only  suited  literally  to  that  econo- 
my of  grace. 

Having  answered,  and  we  hope  satisfactorily,  the 
objections  brought  against  our  argument  for  a  gospel 
Psalmody  deduced  from  the  circumstance  that  Christ 
is  represented  in  the  book  of  Psalms  as  coming  into 
our  world,  we  will  now  consider  our  opponent's  com- 
plaints or  charges  against  us.  He  charges  us  with 
"misrepresenting  him  in  almost  every  argument,  and 
an  almost  continual  ascription  to  him  of  sentiments 
and  statements  for  which  there  is  no  foundation."  He 
has,  however,  adduced  only  three  instances,  and  it  is 
to  be  presumed  that  they  are  the  strongest  which  he 
could  muster,  and  these  we  will  now  examine  in  their 
order. 

The  first  of  these  cases  is,  that  we  have  said  in  our 
first  and  seventh  numbers  that  he  attemjoted  to  place 
us  in  a  false  position  in  this  discussion,  by  represent- 
ing us  as  holding,  that  we  are  to  take  our  songs  of 
praise  to  God  exclusively  from  the  New  Testament 
scriptures.  We  have  thought  so,  and  said  so,  and 
we  still  think  it  will  be  apparent  to  all  who  have  read, 
or  will  read,  the  first  number  of  his  Review.  In  jus- 
tice to  ourselves  we  noticed  it  at  the  time,  and  treated 
it  as  tenderly  as  we  thought  it  deserved ;  but  we  did 
not  then  positively  say,  nor  do  we  now  say,  that  it 
was  a  designed  misrepresentation.  For  we  are  aware 
that  one  man  may  misrepresent  another,  by  mistaking 
his  meaning,  or  through  inattention  to  all  which  he 
may  have  said  on  the  subject.  We  suppose  that  it  is 
in  allusion  to  this  case,  that  he  says — "  that  if  any  of 
our  brethren  in  his  own  name,  will  point  out  a  single 


106  PSALMODY. 

instance  in  this  Review,  in  which  he  has  attributed  to 
us  a  sentiment  which  our  own  language  does  not  teach, 
according  to  the  ordinary  meaning  of  words,  he  pledges 
himself  to  the  christian  community  to  acknowledge  his 
error,  publicly,  and  to  correct  it."  As  we  are  con-, 
scious  that  we  have  not  the  least  desire,  that  Dr.  P. 
should  suffer  the  least  detriment  in  the  public  estima- 
tion by  us,  we  here  propose  what  we  think  will  be 
more  likely  to  settle  existing  heart-burnings  between 
us.  Let  him  select  a  clerical  friend,  and  we  will  se- 
lect another,  and  let  them  consider  what  Dr.  P.  has 
said  on  this  point  in  the  first  number  of  his  Review, 
and  the  first  number  of  his  "Remarks"  in  his  "Preach- 
er ;"  and  what  we  have  said  on  the  same  point,  in  our 
first  and  seventh  numbers,  and  if  they  say  that  we  had 
no  ground  for  saying  that  he  misrepresented  us,  we 
will  conclude,  and  say,  that  we  have  unhappily  mis- 
taken his  meaning.  And  should  they  find  that  there 
was  ground  for  the  charge,  yet  if  they  are  of  opinion, 
that  the  misrepresentation  was  not  designed,  we  will 
receive  it  as  satisfactory.  For  we  admit  the  justness 
of  Dr.  P's  observation,  and  which  we  expect  he  ex- 
tends to  himself,  "that  we  are  too  deeply  concerned 
in  the  case,  to  be  a  competent  witness."  Indeed,  had 
he  but  said  at  the  beginning  that  he  did  not  design  to 
misrepresent  us,  it  would  not  have  come  for  a  third 
time  before  the  public  eye ;  but  let  it  be  remembered, 
that  for  bringing  it  the  second  and  third  times,  he  has 
himself  alone  to  blame.  We  wish  to  put  an  end  to 
these  querulous  complaints,  for  the  binding  obligation 
of  the  ninth  commandment  apart,  we  would  scorn  as 
a  man  to  misrepresent  him.  We  may  have  mistaken 
him,  but  to  misrepresent  him,  we  never  have  in  a 
single  instance.  Indeed  we  had  no  temptation  to  do 
so. 

The  second  complaint,  or  charge  is,  that  we  have 
represented  him  in  our  seventh  number  as  being  "se- 
lected by  his  brethren  as  their  champion  in  the  pend- 


DR.    r.    THE    CHAMPIOX.  107 

ing  controversy."  And  was  not  this  the  fact  ?  His 
own  staternent  proves  it.  He  has  said  in  the  first 
number  of  his  "Preacher,"  "  that  in  conformity  to  the 
wishes  of  some  of  his  brethren,  the  editor  entered  up- 
on the  task  of  reviewing  our  Inquiry."  Now,  do  not 
these  words  imply  and  import,  that  there  was  a  con- 
sultation on  the  subject  between  him  and  some  of  his 
brethren  ;  and  what  was  his  "  undertaking  the  task  of 
reviewing  our  Inquiry  in  conformity  to  their  wishes," 
but  that  he  was  selected  by  them  for  that  purpose  ? 
And  what  is  a  champion,  but  one  who  not  only  fights 
his  own  battles,  but  the  battles  of  others,  whether  civil, 
or  ecclesiastical — by  the  arm  of  the  flesh,  or  by  the 
sword  of  the  Spirit.  And  if  adroitly  dodging  the 
main  question,  spending  the  time  on  collateral  or  un- 
important points,  and  protracting  the  issue,  by  weary- 
ing out  his  opponent,  as  it  would  seem,  deserves  a 
large  meed  of  thanks  from  his  constituents,  he  deserves 
it  richly.  They  could  not,  we  are  persuaded,  have  se- 
lected a  more  suitable  person  for  the  above  purposes. 
But  the  above  high  crime  and  misdemeanor  was 
aggravated  by  the  circumstance,  that  our  7th  No.  was 
published  at  the  time  that  the  convention  of  the  three 
Synods  of  Pittsburgh,  Wheeling,  and  Ohio,  sat  in 
Pittsburgh.  And  as  we  were  there,  he  charitably 
"  apprehends  that  we  were  not  in  the  most  happy 
frame  on  the  occasion,  for  giving  a  fresh  impulse 
to  the  cause  of  religion."  Now,  how  did  he,  or 
could  he  know,  what  was  our  frame  of  mind  on  the 
occasion,  and  what  should  have  disturbed  it  ?  Our 
publishing  what  he  himself  had  previously  published 
to  the  world.  We  have  no  answer  to  this;  and  let 
the  reader  now  say,  if  the  charge  "of  our  making 
statements  that  have  no  foundation  in  fact,"  is  not  al- 
together groundless ;  "  and  if  the  pious  reader  had  rea- 
son to  be  astonished,  because  there  is  no  such  state- 
ment in  the  Preacher."  Let  the  reader  also  say,  if 
we  were  wrong,  when  we  said  that  this    discussion  is 


108  PSALMODY. 

descending  fast,  on  the  part  of  our  opponent,  into  tri- 
fling cavils,  and  a  war  of  words.  But  all  will  be  un- 
availing, for  the  day  is  coming  when  he  must  produce 
the  proof  of  his  main  point,  or  the  public  see  and  say, 
that  he  has  none.  This  will  be  expected  more  espe- 
cially, as  this  is  the  second  time  that  he  is  travelling 
over  the  same  ground. 

The  third  complaint,  or  charge  is, — that  we  misrep- 
resent him  in  respect  to  his  hearers  not  singing  his  ex- 
planation of  the  Psalms,  and  he  closes  with  represent- 
ing us  as  saying — "  that  to  sing  the  very  words  of  an 
inspired  Psalm,  is  to  exhibit  a  scene  of  mental  lying 
in  the  house  of  God."  Now,  there  never  was  a  more 
palpable  misrepresentajion  than  this.  The  reader 
will  have  observed,  that  Dr.  P.  represents  us  as  say- 
ing so  in  respect  to  all  the  Psalms ;  whereas,  we  only 
have  said  so  in  respect  to  some  portions  of  some 
Psalms,  and  that  only,  according  to  his  own  system  of 
Psalmody.  We  had  said  more  than  once,  that  every 
Psalm  might  be  sung  profitably,  if  the  singers  sung  the 
explanations  which  they  may  have  heard  from  the  offici- 
ating minister,  previously  to  their  singing  of  the  Psalm. 
Dr.  P.  denied  that  they  did  so,  but  sung  the  Psalm, 
"  literally  and  truly,"  as  it  is  in  their  P^alm  book. — 
This  appeared  strange  to  us,  as  he  said  at  the  same 
time,  that  they  made  use  of  the  explanation  "  as  a  help 
to  assist  them  to  sing  with  the  understanding."  This 
led  us  to  ask,  if  singing  the  words  of  the  66th  Psalm, 
"  I  will  go  into  thy  house  with  burnt  offerings," nvould 
not  on  his  system  be  mental  lying  in  the  house  of 
God,  as  no  one  designed  to  offer  sacrifice,  and  they 
were  not  to  affix  the  antitypical  idea  to  the  word  "  of- 
fering." We  added  that  this  must  be  the  case,  or  the 
alternative  was,  affixing  no  idea  to  typical  words  at 
all.  And  this  explains,  and  is  an  answer  to  another 
charge,  "  that  in  singing  the  Psalm,  they  have  no  re- 
gard whatever  to  its  meaning."  The  reader  will  per- 
ceive that  the  above  statement  is  very  different  from. 


CONTEMPTIBLE    QUIBBLING.  109 

saying  absolutely,  "  that  to  sing  the  words  of  an  inspi- 
red Psalm  is  to  exhibit  a  scene  of  mental  lying  in  the 
house  of  God."  Besides,  to  have  it  said  so,  would 
be  at  war  with  what  we  have  repeatedly  said  of  the 
excellency  and  suitableness  of  many  of  the  Psalms  for 
the  praises  of  God,  as  he  could  not  but  know.  In 
this  5th  No.  of  his  Remarks,  Dr.  P.  alludes  to  himself 
as  a  "  Christian  and  a  Gentleman."  We  do  not  dis- 
pute his  claim  and  title,  but  we  are  persuaded,  as  either 
or  both,  he  cannot  review  the  preceding  charges  without 
feeling  his  cheek  suffused  with  the  blush  of  shame,  and 
making  that  acknowledgement  and  reparation  which  a 
Christian  and  a  Gentleman  ought  to  make  on  such  an 
occasion.  This  shame  must  be  increased  upon  the 
reflection  that  this  gross  misrepresentation  was  made 
in  the  very  No.  in  which  he  charges  his  opponent  with 
misrepresenting  himself.  If  agreeable  to  Dr.  P.  w^e 
have  no  objections  that  this  case  be  also  submitted  to 
our  mutual  friends. 

And  here  it  is  necessary  to  remark,  that  there  has 
been  all  along,  something  mysterious  and  incomprehen- 
sible to  us  in  Dr.  P.'s  saying,  that  the  people  do  not 
sing  his  explanations  of  the  Psalms,  and  yet  that  they 
use  them  as  "helps  to  assist  them  to  sing  with  the 
understanding."  There  apj^eared  to  be  a  glaring 
inconsistency  in  the  two  statements ;  and  therefore  we 
adverted  to  the  subject  oftener  than  we  would  other- 
wise have  done,  with  the  expectation  of  obtaining 
more  light  on  the  point,  and  we  think  that  we  have  ob- 
tained that  light  from  the  last  No.  of  his  "  Remarks." 
If  we  now  understand  him  aright,  the  state  of  the  case 
is  this.  His  hearers  in  singing,  as  we  believed,  do 
affix  the  spiritual  ideas  appertaining  to  a  ritual  or  typi- 
cal word,  and  which  they  may  have  heard  in  the  expla- 
nation but  they  do  not  sing  the  explanation  itself; 
consequently  his  saying  that  they  do  not  sing  the 
explanation,  was  founded  on  a  sorry  and  con- 
temptible quibbling  in  words.  We  say  contempti- 
10 


110  PSALMODY. 

ble,  because  we  have  repeatedly  said  that  by  sing- 
ing the  explanation  of  a  Psalm,  we  meant  affixing 
the  antitypical  idea  to  the  typical  word  which  was 
pointed  out  in  the  course  of  an  explanation,  yet 
as  we  used  the  word  explanation  he  still  persisted  in 
denying  that  they  sung  the  explanation,  mean- 
ing, thereby  the  very  words  of  the  explainer. — 
This  is  a  refinement  in  language  and  logic,  to 
which  we  were  not  accustomed,  and  we  did  not  ex- 
pect our  opponent  would  have  taken  refuge  under  it 
in  this  case,  for  he  could  not  but  know  what  we  meant 
by  singing  the  explanation  of  a  Psalm.  He  is  wel- 
come to  it,  however,  and  to  all  the  aid  which  it  can 
give  him  in  this  controversy,  but  the  reader  cannot  but 
see,  that  the  cause  cannot  be  good  that  compels  a  man 
to  resort  to  such  low  and  contemptible  means  to  sup- 
port it.  Such  are  not  the  weapons  of  an  honest  and 
honorable  warfare. 

And  what,  now,  are  the  consequences  which  in  ma- 
ny instances  legitimately  flow  from  singing  the  book  of 
Psalms  in  the  foregoing  manner.  This — that  the 
Presbyterian,  and  the  Associate  Reformed  Churches, 
both  sing  what  is  called  "human  composure,"  in  the 
worship  of  God.  The  only  difference  is,  that  Pres- 
byterians sing  written,  and  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church  sings  mental  human  composure.  This  is  ev- 
ident from  the  circumstance,  that  when  the  singer  af- 
fixes the  antitypical  idea  to  the  typical  words,  as  "the 
blood  of  Christ,"  for  the  "blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats," 
the  external  form  of  the  Psalm  is  changed,  or  assumes 
a  new  and  different  aspect  to  the  Christian  worship- 
per. It  is  not  true,  then,  that  he  sings  the  Psalm 
"literally  and  truly,"  for  the  literal  meaning  of  the 
word  is  dropped,  and  the  spiritual  meaning  properly 
substituted  in  its  place.  To  affix  the  literal  meaning 
to  the  word,  would  be  renouncing  Christianity,  and 
returning  to  Judaism.  And  we  would  here  ask,  of 
what  advantage  can  it  be,  to  sing  the   express   words 


NEARLY   AGREED.  Ill 

of  a  Psalm,  when  in  many  instances,  to  sing  with  the 
understanding,  a  different  idea  is  apphed  to  them  from 
what  they  Hterally  import.  To  express  the  spiritual 
meaning  of  many  words  in  the  Psalms  in  New  Testa- 
ment language,  is  what  is  improperly  called  "human 
composure,"  and  it  makes  no  difference  in  the  case, 
whether  that  meaning  is  committed  to  writing,  or  ex- 
pressed mentally,  or  by  the  mouth.  The  inquiry 
should  be :  is  what  we  sing  suited  to  the  praises  of 
God,  and  does  it  contain  inspired  matter,  or  a  part 
of  divine  revelation  ?  The  two  churches,  then,  in  re- 
spect of  singing  Psalms,  are  nearer  to  each  other  than 
has  been  generally  imagined,  and  it  requires  but  a  lit- 
tle sober  reflection  to  bring  together  those  who  have 
been  alienated  from  each  other,  by  this  ill-understood 
question.  And  we  are  persuaded,  that  the  time  is 
coming,  and  perhaps  not  very  distant,  when  the  Church 
will  have  a  version  of  the  book  of  Psalms,  in  which 
all  typical,  ritual,  and  otherwise  obscure  Avords  will  be 
omitted,  and  the  antitypical  or  spiritual  idea  expressed 
in  suitable  language  taken  from  the  New  Testament. 
This  is  what  Dr.  Watts  designed  and  attempted,  but 
with  what  success  is  not  now  the  question.  But 
candor  constrains  us  to  say  here,  we  never  have  been 
perfectly  satisfied  with  his  version  of  the  Psalms.  Not 
because  he  has  mistaken  the  meaning  of  the  types,  or 
introduced  any  thing  inconsistent  with  the  analogy  or 
proportion  of  faith,  but  because  he  has  in  some  instan- 
ces almost  diluted  the  spirit  of  the  original,  by  a  too 
expansive  paraphrase,  or  explanation.  As  to  hymns 
and  spiritual  songs,  as  the  Apostle  calls  them,  we  would 
like  a  collection  executed  on  the  plan  of  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland — a  select  num- 
ber of  passages  from  the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 
versified  as  near  to  the  originals,  as  the  nature  and 
laws  of  versification  will  admit.  This,  w^e  think,  will 
be  always  safest  and  best. 


112  PSALMODY. 


NO.  XII. 


saying  that  there  are  no  typeSf  hut  only  tyjn- 
cal  language  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  re- 
futed and  exposed. 

Dr.  Pressly  introduces  the  6th  number  of  his  "Re- 
marks "  by  complaining  that  we  have  endeavored  by 
"  wit  and  sarcasm,"  to  exhibit  him  to  the  pubhc  in  a 
"ridiculous"  j^oint  of  light,  while  he  has  "treated 
our  hoary  hairs  with  merited  respect."  If  he  has,  it 
has  been  in  the  manner  of  Joab  when  he  said  to 
Amasa,  "  art  thou  in  health,  my  brother,  and  kissed 
him,  and  then  smote  him  in  the  fifth  rib."  Many 
instances  of  this  kind  of  respect  might  be  produced 
from  his  Review  and  Remarks,  but  the  following  from 
this  very  number  will,  we  think,  be  ample  proof. — 
"  There  is  something  so  exceedingly  imerile  in  the 
vain  hoasting  of  our  venerable  author,  that  it  is  really 
painful  to  have  to  expose  it."  Again,  "  anile  non- 
5e;zse,"  or  the  nonsense  of  an  old  w^oman.  We  are 
not  to  be  understood  as  complaining  of  such  things, 
for  they  cannot  do  us  any  harm,  and  we  have  never 
complained  but  when  our  words  have  been  distorted 
from  their  real  meaning,  or  our  sentiments  misrepre- 
sented in  a  palpable  manner. 

But  passing  this  by,  we  will  now  re-examine  what 
he  reiterates  and  tries  to  defend  in  this  number,  re- 
specting some  portions  of  the  Psalms  : — "  That  typi- 
cal expressions  are  frequently  employed  in  the  Psalms, 
but  the  Psalms  themselves  are  not  typical." — "  That 
language  abounds  in  the  book  of  Psalms  which  con- 
veys an  allusion  to  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the 
law,  but  will  any  one  pretend  to  say  that  the  Psalms 
themselves  are  among  '  the  shadows  of  good  things 
to  come.'  "  He  also  says,  "  that  no  one  wants  proof 
to  satisfy  him  that  the  sacrifices  of  the  law  were  typi- 
cal."— Let  this  be  remembered. 


PSALMS    OF    DAVID    TYPICAL.  113 

We  adduced  a  portion  of  the  66th  Psalm  as  proof 
that  portions  of  the  Psahns  are  typical,  and  typical  too 
of  the  death  of  Christ,  as  appears  from  Eph.  4  :  2,  for 
the  principal  phraseology  of  the  latter  would  seem  to 
have  been  borrowed  from  the  former.  In  the  66th 
Psalm  David  says,  "  I  will  go  into  thy  house  with 
burnt  offerings — I  will  offer  unto  thee  burnt  sacrifices 
of  fatlings  with  the  incense  of  rams  ;  I  will  offer  bul- 
locks with  goats."  And  in  Eph.  4 :  2,  the  Apostle 
says,  "  walk  in  love,  as  Christ  also  hath  loved  us,  and 
hath  given  himself  for  us,  an  offering  and  a  sacrifice 
to  God  for  a  sweet  smelling  savor."  The  reader  will 
have  observed  that  in  the  66th  Psalm  there  is  a  posi- 
tive declaration  and  promise  of  the  Psalmist  to  offer 
burnt  sacrifices  to  Jehovah,  as  was  his  duty  as  a  Jew 
to  do,  and  which  he  had  been  in  the  habit  of  doing 
from  time  to  time."  This  surely  is  something  more  than 
using  typical  language,  and  alkiding  to  the  injunctions 
of  the  Levitical  law,  and  proves  our  point,  unless  Dr. 
P.  will  prove  that  the  word  "  sacrifice,"  when  used 
in  the  Psalms,  loses  its  typical  meaning,  and  means 
something  else,  or  nothing  at  all.  And  to  this  may 
be  added  that  we  are  told  in  the  110th  Psalm  that 
Melchisadeck  was  a  type  of  Christ  in  his  priestly 
office — "  thou  art  a  Priest  for  ever  after  the  order  of 
Melchisadeck."  Dr.  P.  might  as  well  say  that  the 
Psalmist  uses  typical  language  only,  for  there  was  no 
type  in  the  case,  as  to  say  that  the.  burnt  sacrifices 
mentioned  in  the  66th  Psalm  were  not  typical  of  the 
sacrifice  which  Christ  offered  up  of  himself  for  the 
sins  of  his  people.  We  confess  that  we  have  never 
known  a  stronger  instance  of  the  darkening  and  be- 
wildering influence  which  an  unscriptural  system  has 
on  the  human  intellect  than  Dr.  P.'s  system  of  Psalm- 
ody has  on  his  understanding,  in  regard  to  the  mean- 
ing of  that  Psalm,  and  portions  of  some  other  Psalms. 

But  to  our  views  on  the  subject  he  objects  by  say- 
ing, "  that  if  there  are  parts  of  the  Psalms  that  are 
10* 


114  PSALMODY. 

types,  the  shadow  of  good  things  to  come,  they  have 
consequently  vanished  away  with  the  typical  institu- 
tions of  the  law.  And  if  this  principle  be  correct,  it 
would  now  be  as  improper  to  sing  those  Psalms  as  to 
offer  a  bullock  in  sacrifice,  or  to  keep  the  passover." 
It  would  so,  if  they  are  to  be  sung  "  literally,"  but  as 
all  the  burnt  sacrifices  were  typical  of  the  death  of 
Christ,  (Eph.  4 :  2.)  and  the  passover  was  typical  of 
the  christian  feast  of  the  supper,  (1  Cor.  5  :  7,  8,) 
then,  as  we  have  repeatedly  said,  if  the  antitypical 
ideas  are  affixed  to  the  typical  words  of  those  Psalms 
they  may  be  sung  profitably  and  acceptably,  but  sure- 
ly not  otherwise.  For  we  cannot  conceive  ^of  any 
other  way  of  singing  them  but  literally,  and  that  would 
be  rank  Judaism,  or  of  not  attaching  any  idea  to  them 
at  all. 

But  as  Dr.  P.  writes  darkly  and  not  explicitly  on 
this  subject,  we  would  remark  farther,  that  if  by 
"  vanishing  away "  he  means  that  the  Psalms  must 
have  ceased  to  be  any  part  of  divine  revelation,  if  any 
part  of  them  are  typical,  he  may  as  well  say  that  the 
book  of  Deuteronomy  has  ceased  to  be  such,  because 
it  contains  the  Levitical  law,  which  was  "  the  shadow 
of  good  things  to  come."  Besides  the  Levitical  law, 
the  book  of  Deuteronomy  contains  the  moral  law,  and 
other  important  precepts,  and  is  therefore  a  valuable 
part  of  the  Bible.  So  is  it  with  the  book  of  Psalms. 
Besides  some  typical  representations  of  Christ  and  his 
Priesthood,  and  vicarious  death,  it  contains  many  very 
valuable  doctrines  and  precepts  for  the  direction  and 
consolation  of  the  people  of  God,  and  is  therefore  an 
invaluable  part  of  divine  revelation  also.  We  do  not 
see,  and  we  think  that  no  man  can  shew  any  incon- 
sistency or  discrepancy  in  this  view  of  the  subject. 

He  objects  also  to  our  saying,  "  that  the  Psalms 
cannot  be  possibly  sung  to  edification  and  divine  ac- 
ceptance without  a  judicious  explanation,  and  the  un- 
learned worshipper  remembers  those  explanations." 


SIXG    WITH    THE    UNDERSTANDING.  11-5 

We  have  said  so,  and  we  think  that  we  have  the  au- 
thority of  the  Apostle  Paul,  and  of  common  sense,  for 
what  we  have  said.  In  1  Cor.  14 :  19,  speaking  of 
preaching,  praying,  and  singing,  he  says, — "  Yet  in 
the  church  I  had  rather  speak  five  words  with  ray 
understanding,  that  by  my  voice  I  might  teach  others 
also,  than  ten  thousand  words  in  an  unknown  tongue." 
And  again,  5  :  15,  "  I  will  pray  with  the  Spirit  and  I 
will  pray  with  the  understanding  also  :  I  will  sing  with 
the  Spirit,  and  I  will  sing  with  the  understanding  also." 
And  who  does  not  see  that  we  cannot  be  profited  by 
singing  what  we  do  not  understand,  any  more  than  if 
we  suno;  a  Psalm  in  an  unknown  tono;ue.  The  church 
of  JR-ome  is  properly  blamed  for  performing  their  wor- 
ship in  an  unknown  tongue. 

The  words  "purge  me  with  hyssop,"  in  the  51st 
Psalm,  were  also  produced  in  our  7th  number  as  typi- 
cal expressions,  to  which  it  is  necessary  to  fix  the 
antitypical  idea,  if  we  would  sing  with  the  understand- 
ing, and  to  divine  acceptance.  There  is  in  the  j^hrase 
an  evident  allusion  to  the  means  appointed  for  cleans- 
ing a  leprous  person,  and  in  singing  it,  it  is  necessary 
to  drop  the  literal  meaning  of  the  phrase,  and  affix  to 
it  the  antitypical  idea,  the  cleansing  influences  of  the 
Spirit,  or  as  Paul  expresses  it,  "the  washing  of  water 
by  the  word."  And  that  Dr.  P.  should  oppose  this 
manner  of  singing  it,  has  surprised  us  ;  but  we  forgot 
that  this  would  be  singing  mental  "  human  comjio- 
sure,"  and  subvert  his  system  of  Psalmody.  We 
will  add  only  on  this  point,  that  in  the  close  of  this 
Psalm  the  Psalmist  does  not  allude  to  sacrifices  as 
typical  language  only,  as  Dr.  P.  would  persuade  us, 
but  actually  promises  that  they  shall  be  offered  to 
Jehovah.  "  Then  shalt  thou  be  pleased  with  the 
sacrifices  of  righteousness,  with  burnt  ofFerhigs,  and 
whole  burnt  offerings,  then  shall  they  offer  bullocks 
upon  thy  altar."  And  admitting  that  the  Psalmist 
uses  typical  language  only,  still  that  typical  language 


116  PSALMODY. 

must  have  some  meaning,  but  what  that  meaning  -is 
our  opponent  has  not  been  so  kind  as  to  tell  us.    • 

We  have  said  that  the  150th  Psalm  is  altogether 
typical.  Dr.  P.  closes  this  number  by  saying,  "  that 
I  am  the  first  man  since  the  creation  of  the  world,  who 
has  advanced  the  ridiculous  affirmation  that  the  150th 
Psalm  is  altogether  typical,  and  portions  of  others  are 
so,  and  therefore  '  the  shadow  of  good  things  to  come.'  " 
We  did  not  know  before  this  that  the  book  of  Psalms 
was  as  old  as  the  creation.  rBut  passing  this  by,  we 
think  that  there  are  few  men  now  existing,  who  would 
understand  us  as  saying,  that  every  word  in  the  150th 
Psalm  is  typical,  but  the  substance  of  it  only ;  and 
that  he  dares  not  deny,  and  this  was  the  point  at  issue 
between  us.  And  yet,  every  word  in  it,  the  words 
*'  praise — mighty  acts — excellent  greatness,"  except- 
ed, are  either  typical  or  figurative.  The  word  "sanc- 
tuary," and  perhaps  "  the  firmament  of  his  power," 
in  the  first  verse,  are  typical,  and  the  words  "  every 
thing  that  hath  breath,"  in  the  last  verse,  are  figura- 
tive, and  the  difi'erence  between  typical  and  figurative 
language  is,  that  "a  type  is  a  person  or  thing,  that  by 
the  destination  of  God  prefigured  something  relative  to 
Jesus  Christ,  and  his  church." — Brown's  D.  B. 
Then  to  praise  God,  "  with  the  sound  of  a  trumpet — 
with  a  psaltery  and  harp — with  stringed  instruments 
and  organs — and  w^ith  cymbals,  the  high-sounding 
cymbals,"  was  highly,  and  altogether  typical. 

In  our  apprehension,  these  instruments  of  music 
typified  or  denoted  high  and  holy  affections  in  singing 
the  praises  of  God.  From  the  preceding  extraordi- 
nary objection  and  criticism,  the  reader  has  seen  the 
scantiness  of  argument  to  which  Dr.  P.  is  reduced  in 
this  discussion.  There  are  few  men  who  would  not 
be  ashamed  to  adduce  such  a  silly  and  miserable  ob- 
jection before  an  intelligent  public.  And  we  think, 
that  his  readers  cannot  but  have  observed,  that  in  his 
"Remarks,"  he  writes  sometimes,  like  a  man  desper- 


RETIRING.  117 

ate  and  reckless,  and  at  other  times  like  a  drowning 
man  catching  at  straws.  What  else  can  be  said  of 
his  criticism  respecting  the  150th  Psalm.  And  on 
the  whole,  we  have  not  seen  any  thing  from  his  pen, 
so  dark  and  self-contradictory  as  this  sixth  number  of 
his  "Remarks."  We  say  self-contradictory,  for  can 
any  man  reconcile  his  saying,  "that  no  man  wants 
proof  to  satisfy  him  that  the  sacrifices  of  the  law  were 
typical,"  and  then  saying,  that  the  sacrifices  mentioned 
in  the  fifty-first  and  sixty-sixth  Psalms,  were  not  typi- 
cal of  the  death  of  Christ.  They  are  utterly  irrecon- 
cileable,  and  as  o^^j^osed  to  each  other,  as  the  Arctic  is 
to  the  Antarctic  pole.  And  now,  can  any  unpreju- 
diced person  embrace  a  system  of  Psalmody  that 
involves  such  jarring  interpretations,  and  self-destruct- 
ive principles. 

We  had  written  the  preceding  in  reply  to  the  sixth 
number  of  Dr.  P.'s  "Remarks,"  and  j')urposed  to  fill 
up  our  own  with  whatever  answer  his  seventh  number 
would  seem  to  require.  We  expected  that  his  seventh 
number  would  necessarily  refer  to  the  information 
which  we  requested  in  our  ninth  number  respecting 
the  person  or  persons  who,  by  divine  command,  col- 
lected and  selected  the  book  of  Psalms,  with  the  view 
that  it  w^as  to  be  the  exclusive  system  of  Psalmody  for 
the  church  to  the  end  of  time.  As  observed  in  that 
number,  this  is  not  only  reasonable  in  itself,  but  indis- 
pensably necessary  for  commanding  and  securing  our 
faith  and  obedience  in  regard  to  his  system  of  Psal- 
mody. But  what  was  our  surprise  on  receiving  the 
seventh  number  of  his  "Preacher,"  to  find  that  he  had 
dropped  the  controversy  on  Psalmody,  and  entered 
upon  a  new  one,  with  a  Rev.  George  W.  Clarke. 
The  omission  could  not  be  owing  to  a  want  of  room 
in  that  number,  a  great  part  of  which  is  taken  up 
with  a  fourth  edition  of  his  "Review"  of  our  "Inqui- 
ry."    Our  readers,  and  his  readers,  will  certainly  be 


118  PSALMODY. 

surprised  at  such  an  abrupt  and  unceremonious  dis- 
missal of  this  important  subject,  and  will  naturally  en- 
quire how  it  is  to  be  accounted  for. 

Perhaps  some  of  our  witty  readers  may  think  and 
say,  that  he  was  guided  by  the  prudent  maxim  of  the 
hero  of  the  celebrated  author  of  Hudibras,  the  two 
first  lines  of  which  he  applied  to  us  in  the  fourth  num-. 
ber  of  his  "Remarks,"  but  very  unjustly,  for  we  are 
still  in  the  field.     The  maxim  is  this  : — 

"  He  that  in  battle  runs  away, 
May  live  to  fight  another  day  ; 
But  he  that  is  in  battle  slain, 
Will  never  live  to  fight  again." 

If  then.  Dr.  P.  has  "run  away  from  the  battle," 
rather  than  run  the  risk  of  being  slain  outright,  we 
think  that  it  must  have  been  for  the  following  reasons. 
As  observed  above,  he  had  positively  affirmed  in  the 
third  number  of  his  "  Remarks,"  that  the  book  of 
Psalms  was  selected  by  some  person  or  persons  di- 
vinely appointed,  to  be  an  exclusive  system  of  Psal- 
mody for  the  church ;  but  when  called  upon  for  the 
proof,  he  found  that  he  had  none  to  give.  And  what 
was  still  more  perplexing,  that  although  he  had  assu- 
med in  the  outset  of  this  discussion, — "that  it  is  the 
will  of  God,  that  the  sacred  songs  contained  in  the 
book  of  Psalms,  be  sung  in  his  worship,  both  public 
and  private,  to  the  end  of  the  world,  and  th-at  we  have 
no  authority  for  using  any  other  ;"  yet  when  repeatedly 
called  upon  to  tell  us  where  this  will  of  God  is  record- 
ed, he  also  found  that  he  had  no  asswer  to  give,  not 
even  one  solitary  text  of  scripture.  For  ourselves, 
we  do  not  know  of  any  such  passage  in  all  the  word 
of  God  ;  but  we  thought  that  he  must  have  had  some 
such  passage  or  passages  in  view,  but  it  seems  that  when 
he-  examined  them  closely,  he  found  them  to  be  as 
irrelevant  as  those  adduced  by  his  brother,  Mr.  Hemp- 
hill. For  surely  such  passages,  as  where  "all  the 
earth  is  called  upon  to  sing  unto  the  Lord  a  new  song," 


DEFEAT    OF    VANITY.  119 

and  that  "  from  the  rising  of  the  sun  to  the  going  down 
of  the  same,  the  Lord's  name  is  to  be  praised,"  do 
not  prove  that  the  book  of  Psalms  was  given  as  an 
exchisive  system  of  Psahnody  to  the  end  of  time. 
They  prove  that  praise  is  to  be  a  part  of  the  worship 
of  God  in  his  church,  but  they  prove  nothing  more. 

What  now  will  a  discerning  public  say  in  this  case, 
and  what  will  Dr.  P.'s  own  particular  friends  say  ? 
We  are  j^ersuaded,  that  they  will  feel  disappointed 
and  mortified.  For  we  have  no  doubt,  that  those  who 
appointed  him  as  their  champion  in  this  controversy, 
expected  that  he  would  forever  silence  his  and  their 
opponents  on  the  subject  of  Psalmody.  We  are  also 
persuaded  from  the  manner  in  which  he  commenced 
this  discussion,  that  he  expected  a  certain  and  brilliant 
victory  over  his  opponent  worn  down  by  old  age,  and 
its  accompanying  infirmities  of  both  body  and  mind. 
We  think,  however,  that  he  will  pay  more  attention 
for  the  time  to  come,  to  the  wholesome  advice  which 
the  king  of  Israel  gave  to  Benhadad,  king  of  Syria — 
"Let  not  him  that  girdeth  on  his  harness,  boast  him- 
self, as  he  that  putteth  it  off."  It  was  with  great  re- 
luctance that  we  entered  upon  this  -controversy,  as  we 
foresaw  from  the  ground  which  onr  opponent  took  in 
the  two  first  numbers  of  his  Review,  and  from  what 
we  thought  was  his  constitutional  temperament,  that  it 
would  be  a  protracted  discussion.  But  we  do  not 
now  regret  the  range  which  the  discussion  has  taken, 
as  the  relative  and  intrinsic  merits  or  demerits  of  the 
two  systems  of  Psalmody,  his  and  ours,  have  been 
thereby  brought  before  the  public  mind  in  a  point  of 
light  not  presented  heretofore.  And  not  only  so,  but 
all  the  objections  against  an  evangelical  Psalmody, 
which  ingenuity  could  devise,  have  also  been  brought 
forward  in  this  discussion.  Some  of  them  were  stated 
in  an  imposing  attitude,  and  doubtless  thought  to  be 
unanswerable,  but  we  trust  that  they  have  not  passed 
unanswered  through  our  hands.     Others  of  them  were 


120  PSALMODY. 

weak,  exceedingly  weak,  as  our  readers  have  seen, 
but  according  to  the  old  adage,  '■^  drowning  men  will 
catch  at  straws." 

We  will  close  with  observing,  that  what  Dr.  P.  has 
been  lacking  in  argument,  he  is  endeavoring  to  supply, 
by  spreading  his  "Review"  far  and  wide.  First,  in 
the  "Missionary  Advocate,"  and  then  twice  in  his 
own  "Preacher;"  and  as  if  that  was  not  sufficient,  he 
has  printed  it  in  a  little  book.  We  think,  however, 
that  his  best  friends  will  say,  that  it  was  neither  fatherly 
nor  judicious,  to  send  the  poor  thing  into  a  carping, 
criticising,  and  laughing  world,  without  a  text  of  scrip- 
ture, or  even  a  fig  leaf,  to  cover  its  unscriptural  na- 
kedness. It  was,  doubtless,  expected  that  in  his 
"Remarks,"  he  would  supply  the  great  defect;  but 
the  public  has  seen  the  issue,  and  such  ever  will  be 
the  issue  in  any  attempt  to  defend  the  unscriptural 
system  of  Psalmody,  which  he  has  been  defending  for 
the  last  twelve  months.  We  repeat  it,  that  he  has 
not  produced  an  iota  of  proof  that  the  book  of  Psalms 
was  given  as  an  exclusive  system  of  Psalmody  to  the 
church  to  the  end  of  time,  whilst  we  think,  that  we 
have  produced  scriptural  i^recept  and  precedent  for 
using  in  the  praises  of  God,  any  portion  of  the  Old  or 
New  Testaments  that  is  suited  to  that  delightful  part 
of  divine  worship.  Without  any  pretension  to  a  spirit 
of  prophecy,  we  venture  to  foretell,  that  the  day  is  not 
very  distant,  when  this  will  be  the  case,  in  all  the  dif- 
ferent branches  of  the  Presbyterian  church.  We 
speak  so  from  "the  signs  of  the  times."  If  our  infor- 
mation is  correct,  the  subject  of  Psalmody  is  canvassed; 
if  not  in  all,  yet  in  a  great  number  of  the  Presbyterian 
churches,  and  from  the  particular  attention  which  we 
have  been  compelled  to  pay  to  the  subject^  we  fear 
not  to  predict  the  issue  in  due  process  of  time.  It 
requires  only  a  fair  discussion,  for  the  people  to  see 
that  a  system  of  Psalmody  has  been  imposed  upon 
them,  that  has  not  a  single  text  of  scripture  to  support 


TRIFLING    MISTAKES.  121 

its  fundamental  principle.  And  a  system,  too,  that 
excludes  from  the  praises  of  the  church,  the  blessings 
of  the  new  covenant  as  purchased  by  the  blood  of 
Jesus,  and  delineated  in  the  New  Testament,  in  all 
their  full,  free,    gracious,  and  heart-attracting  colors. 


.   NO.  XIII. 

Objections  to  our  Revieiv  of  Mr.  Hemjfhiirs  sermoii 
cms  iccred — Puseyism. 

After  a  cessation  of  six  weeks,  Dr.  Pressly  has  again 
*'  lifted  up  his  pen  "  against  us;  but  not  in  reply  to  our 
last,  or  12th  No.,  but  in  defence  of  his  friend  Mr.  Hemp- 
hill, of  South  Carolina,  whose  sermon  on  Psalmody 
we  had  reviewed  in  our  6th  No.  He  charges  us  with 
falling  into  three  mistakes  respecting  that  sermon.  1. 
That  we  have  "said,  that  it  was  preached  before  "the 
A.  R.  Synod  of  the  Carolinas,"  but  he  tells  us  that 
besides  the  two  Carolinas  tlie  Synod  covers  the  states 
of  Florida,  Georgia,  Alabama^  Tennessee,  Mississip- 
pi, and  part  of  Kentucky,  and  that  its  proper  name  is 
"the  Synod  of  the  South."  This  may  be  all  true, 
and  we  have  no  desire  to  narrow  its  limits.  2.  That 
we  have  said  the  sermon  was  preached,  before  the  Sy- 
nod in  August  last;  whereas,  he  tells  us,  that  it  was 
preached  before  his  own  congregation  in  August,  and 
then  again  before  the  Synod  in  October.  3.  As  it 
is  said,  in  the  title  page,  that  the  sermon  w^as  "  pub- 
lished by  request,"  we  concluded  that  the  request 
came  from  the  Synod;  but  Dr.  P.  tells  us,  that  it  came 
from  his  own  church  at  Bethel. 

He  makes  no  little  noise  about  these  trifling  and  ir- 
relevant mistakes,  and  which  any  man  might  fall  into, 
and  yet  he  has  fallen  into  a  greater  mistake,  if  a  mis- 
11 


122  PSALMODY. 

take  it  is.  We  have  said  that  one  half  of  the  ser- 
mon is  filled  with  "  irrelevant  declamation,  bitter 
denunciations  of  what  he  calls  human  compositions 
in  the  worship  of  God — we  wonder  what  the  ser- 
mon itself  was — and  an  unprofitable  comparison  of 
Rouse's  and  Dr.  Watt's  versions  of  the  Psalms." 
The  words,  "we  wonder  what  the  sermon  itself 
was,"  Dr.  P.  interprets  as  an  allusion  to  the  Synod, 
"as  an  ignorant  body  of  men,"  whereas  they  obvi- 
ously refer  to  the  words  immediately  preceding — 
"human  compositions  in  the  worship  of  God."  Or 
as  Mr.  H.  was  declaiming  against  human  composi- 
tions in  the  worship  of  God,  we  wondered  if  the 
sernion  itself  was  a  divine  or  human  composition. 
And  we  seriously  think,  that  there  is  no  man 
whose  mind  was  not  disturbed,  and  embittered,  and 
desirous  of  finding  fault  where  there  is  none,  would 
understand  and  interpret  the  words  as  he  has  done. 
The  Synod  may  be  a  respectable  body  of  men,  for 
any  thing  we  know  to  the  contrary,  and  nothing 
was  more  distant  from  our  mind  at  the  time,  than 
to  allude  to  them  in  a  disrespectful  manner,  or  to  al- 
lude to  them  at  all. 

But  it  seems  that  we  have  fallen  into  another  mis- 
take, in  representing  as  Mr.  Hemphill's  first  argument 
for  an  exclusive  Psalmody,  what  was  not  designed  as 
an  argument,  but  was  designed  for  a  difi*erent  pur- 
pose— "  to  show^  from  the  contents  of  many  of  the 
Psalms,  that  they  could  not  have  been  designed  ex- 
clusively for  the  Jews.  We  acknowledge,  that, 
strictly  speaking,  this  is  not  laid  down  numerically, 
by  Mr.  H.,  as  his  first  argument,  and  we  had  doubts 
whether  we  should  consider  it  as  such.  But  as  it  is 
intimately,  if  not  vitally  connected  with  the  subject  in 
dispute,  we  concluded  to  consider  it  as  an  argument ; 
for  an  argument  it  certainly  is, — lest  it  might  be  said, 
if  we  passed  it  by,  that  we  were  afraid  to  encounter  it. 
The  truth  is,  the  contents  of  the  sermon  are  so  hud- 


TRIFLING    CAVILS.  123 

(lied  and  jumbled  together,  and  arranged  in  such  an 
illogical  manner,  that  we  felt  at  a  loss  where  to  begin, 
and  examine  it,  so  as  to  be  understood  by  our  readers. 
The  reader  will  have  perceived,  however,  that  we 
have  not  done  Mr.  H.  any  injustice  by  passing  by  any 
thing  that  was  relevant  to  the  point  at  isstie.  Indeed, 
according  to  Dr.  P.,^e  have  done  him  too  much  jus- 
tice, by  noticing,  vj0ks  according  to  the  laws  of  fair 
argumentation,  we  might  have  entirely  passed  by. — 
But  the  reader  may  now  be  ready  to  ask,  how  do  all 
these  trifling  cavils  prove  that  the  church  in  her 
Psalmody  is  to  confine  herself  to  the  book  of  Psalms 
to  the  end  of  time.     Dr.  P.  can  tell,  but  we  cannot. 

When  Dr.  P.  intimated  in  his  *'  Preacher,"  that  he 
would  review  our  remarks  on  Mr.  H's  sermon,  his 
friends  doubtless  expected  that  he  would  defend  his 
brother's  argument  for  an  exclusive  Psalmody  dedu- 
ced from  what  is  called  the  "  Hallel,"  and  his  inter- 
pretation of  Col.  3  :  16.  With  respect  to  the  "  Hal- 
lel," he  does  not  even  mention  it,  much  less  attempt 
to  defend  it.  As  to  Col.  3 :  16,  we  had  observed  that 
Dr.  P.  considered  the  phrase  "  The  word  of  Christ" 
in  that  passage,  as  having  reference  to  the  whole  word 
of  God,  and  Mr.  H.  to  the  book  of  Psalms  exclusive- 
ly, and  the  Dr.  tries  to  reconcile  these  jarring  inter- 
pretations, and  to  shew,  that  Mr.  H.  and  himself  are  of 
the  same  opinion  on  that  point.  We  have  nothing  to 
do  with  this  family  dispute,  and  they  may  settle  it  the 
best  way  they  can ;  but  that  will  not  prevent  others 
from  seeing  and  saying,  that  their  interpretations  of  the 
phrase  are  contradictory,  the  one  to  the  other. 

Dr.  P.  overlooks  altogether,  INIr.  H's  answ^er  to  our 
argument, — 'Uha;t  if  we  may  use  our  own  words,  and 
arrangement  of  divine  truth  in  preaching  and  praying, 
why  not  in  singing-  He  does  not  attempt  to  defend 
or  strengthen  the  answer,  and  it  is  prudent  in  him  to 
do  -so ;  for  in  our  view  the  argument  is  unanswerable, 
and  level  to  the  weakest  capacity. 

Dr.  P.  charges  us  with  the  error'  of  saying,  that 


124  PSALMODY. 

some  of  the  Psalms  require  "  a  judicious  explanation  " 
to  be  sung  with  profit,  and  to  divine  acceptance  :  and 
**  he  asks  the  Protestant  reader,  what  he  thinks  of  the 
sentiment  that  we  cannot  with  propriety  use  certain 
portions  of  the  word  of  God  in  his  worshi]^,  unless  we 
have  the  help  of  a  judicious  explanation.  We  do  not 
believe  in  the  Popish  doctrine  of  what  is  called  "  opus 
operatum,''''  or  that  ordinances  of  themselves  confer  di- 
vine grace.  This  doctrine  under  the  name  of  "  Pu- 
seyism  "  is  making  rapid  progress  in  the  present  day 
in  the  Episcopal  churches ;  but  we  were  surprised  to 
see  something  like  it  in  a  branch  of  the  Presbyterian 
church ;  and  it  behooves  Dr.  P.  to  ask  himself,  if  his 
implicitly  saying  that  we  can  be  profited  by  singing 
what  we  do  not  understand  is  not  very  like  it,  if  not 
the  doctrine  itself. 

With  this  is  connected  another  charge,  that  we  have 
said  that  his  hearers  do  not  sing  his  explanation  of  the 
Psalms,  but  smg  them  "  literally  and  truly."  He 
has  said  so  more  than  once.  And  w^hat  is  it  to  sing  a 
Psalm  "  literally  and  truly."  Is  it  not  to  sing  not.  only 
the  very  words,  but  to  attach  to  those  words  the  ideas 
which  are  attributed  to  them  by  common  consent. 
Now,  in  the  66th  Psalm  so  often  referred  to,  it  is  said, 
"I  will  offer  to  thee  (Jehovah)  burnt  sacrifices  with 
fatlings,  with  the  incense  of  rams."  A  Jew  could 
sing  these  words  "  literally  and  truly,"  because  he 
intended  to  do  so,  but  do  Dr.  P.'s  hearers  mean  to  do 
so.  No — what  then?  "As  the  believer  under  the 
legal  dispensation  did  not  rest  in  the  sacrifices  of  the 
law,  but  through  them  looked  to  Him  who  is  the  end 
of  the  law  for  righteousness  to  every  one  that  believ- 
eth,"  so  believers  now,  when  tliey  sing  those  words, 
look  through  the  type  to  Christ  the  antitype,  for  ac- 
ceptance of  their  persons  and  services.  This  is  all 
very  well,  and  what  we  beheved  they  did  ;  but  then 
they  do  not  sing  them  '*  literally  and  truly,"  but  anti" 
typically  or  spiritually.  And  he  should  not  have  used 
words  so  calculated  to  convey  false  ideas  on  the  sub- 


pressly's  psalms.  12-5 

ject,  and  now  when  their  impropriety  is  pointed  out, 
candor  should  induce  him  to  retract  them.     Again,  in 
the  llSth  Psahn,  Christ  is  exhibited  as  the  stone  which 
the  buiklers  rejected,  but  is  become  the  head-stone  of 
the  corner ;  and  then  it  is  said  of  him,  "  blessed  is  he 
who  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord."     Now  do  Dr. 
P.'s  hearers  sing  those  words  "  Hterally  and  truly." 
No  ? — The  intelligent  part  of  them  substhute  the  past 
for  the  future  tense,  and  to  do  otherwise  would  be  to 
deny  practically  that  He  is  come  in  the  flesh,  and  sing- 
ing of  a  Saviour  who  is  yet  to  come.     And  what  now 
is  all  this  but  singing  what  is  called  "  human  compo- 
sure," and  wherein  does  it  differ  from  a  modern  hymn 
which  is  founded  on  the  advent,  life,  and  death  of 
Christ,  as  giving  himself  as  an  atoning  sacrifice  for  the 
sins  of  his  people.     They  differ  only  in  this,  that  the 
one  is  mental  human  composure,  founded  on  the  sing- 
er's previous  knowledge,  or  on  the  ideas  he  may  have 
received  in  the  course  of  the  explanation,  but  the  oth- 
er is  written  and  adopted  by  the  church.     Were  we 
wrong,  then,  when  we  said,   that  while  Presbyterians 
sing  what  is  called  Watt's  Psalms,    or  explanation  of 
the  Psalms,  Dr.  P's  hearers  sing  Pressly's  Psalms,  or 
explanations  of  the  Psalms.     There  may  be  a  differ- 
ence of  opinion  as  to  the  character  of  the  two  explana- 
tions, but  the  principle  on  which  both  act  is  the  same. 
The  object  of  both  is,  to  make  the  subject  of  the  Psalm 
clearer  and  fuller  to  the  less  learned  singer;    and  our 
object  in  mentioning  these  things  again,  is  to  promote 
the  unity,  peace,  prosperity,  and  purity  of  the  church. 
Near  the  close  of  this  No.  he  advances  the  follow- 
ing doctrine  in  favor  of  his  exclusive  system  of  Psalm- 
ody.    "  That  the  songs  contained    in    the   book    of 
Psalms    are   the   word   of  God,  while  those   hymns 
which  have  been  composed  by  men  are  not   the  word 
of  God,  but  are  human  views  of  the  word  of  God. 
The  most  that  can  be  said  of  them  is,  that  they  may  be 
conformable    to  the  word   of   God."     We    confess, 
11* 


126  PSALMODY. 

that  we  were  astonished  and  startled  at  the  reckless, 
and  we  think  impious  assertion, — that  although  the 
book  of  Psalms  when  versified  for  the  praises  of  God, 
is  his  word,  yet  every  other  portion  of  the  scriptures, 
when  versified  for  that  purpose,  ceases  to  be  his  word. 
Mr.  H.  had  thrown  out  the  same  idea  in  his  sermon, 
and  in  reviewing  it,  we  were  led  to  ask,  and  we  ask 
again,  how  the  contaminating  and  transforming  effect 
is  produced ;  for  we  believe  with  the  wise  man,  that 
"  every  word  of  God  is  pure,"  wherever  it  may  be 
placed  or  found.  It  may  indeed  be  misapplied,  as 
we  think  it  is  in  the  present  case,  but  that  cannot  con- 
taminate the  pure  word  itself.  Besides,  according  to 
the  preceding  doctrine,  there  should  be  no  preaching 
or  praying,  but  in  the  very  words  of  the  scriptures,  for 
every  honest  preacher  preaches  and  prays  according  to 
his  own  views  of  the  divine  word.  And  if  the  hymn 
or  spiritual  song  is  not  a  literal  or  close  translation, 
but  only  founded  upon,  and  agreeable  to  the  word  of 
God  :  still  the  ideas  in  it  are  inspired  ideas,  as  far  as 
they  are  conformable  to  that  standard,  and  consequent- 
ly must  be  as  acceptable  to  Jehovah,  as  an  orthodox 
sermon,  or  an  orthodox  prayer. 

Dr.  P.  closes  this  7th  No.  by  saying,  "  that  such 
are  some  of  the  evil  consequences  resulting  from  a  de- 
parture from  that  system  of  Psalmody  which  God  has 
provided  for  the  use  of  his  Church."  The  reader  need 
not  be  told,  that  by  this  exclusive  system  of  Psalmody, 
he  means  the  book  of  Psalms,  and  although  he  was 
called  upon  time  after  time,  for  better  than  thirteen 
months,  for  the  proof  of  this  assertion,  he  has  not  pro- 
duced a- single  iota,  but  takes  it  for  granted,  and  argued 
from  it  accordingly.  The  reasonable  conclusion  then 
must  be,  that  there  is  none  ;  at  least,  that  he  does  not 
know  of  any  such  proof.  To  support  his  system,  it  is 
indispensably  necessary  to  prove  the  two  following  pro- 
positions. First,  that  God  designed,  that  some  of  the 
Bongs  of  praise  of  the  Old  Testament  dispensation  should 


PROOF    NOT    YET    GIVEN.  127 

be  a  system  of  Psalmody  for  his  Church  to  the  end  of  the 
world.  Secondly,  that  some  person,  or  persons  were 
divinely  commissioned  to  make  that  selection,  and  col- 
lection, and  that  the  book  of  Psalms  is  that  collection. 
Dr.  P.  has  repeatedly  affirmed  the  ti^uth  of  both  of  the 
propositions  in  one  form  or  other,  and  when  repeated- 
ly called  upon  for  the  proof,  declines  it,  if  such  there 
is.  The  question  and  discussion  then  is  at  an  end, 
until  he  produces  this  proof;  and  hundreds  of  disqui- 
sitions on  collateral  points  are  of  no  avail  in  this  case, 
and  if  the  discussion  is  to  be  continued,  it  must  be 
confined  to  those  two  points — every  thing  else  is 
"beating  the  air,"  and  labor  in  vain.  For  surely  we 
have  had  enough  of  extraneous  and  irrelevant  matter 
in  this  discussion,  but  the  reader,  knows  that  it  was  not 
our  fault ;  for  in  an  early  stage  of  the  controversy,  w^e 
called  for  this  proof,  but  it  was  postponed  from  time  to 
time,  notwithstanding  promises  that  it  would  be  pro- 
duced. We  repeat  it,  that  if  the  discussion  is  to  be 
continued,  it  must  be  confined  to  those  two  important 
and  vital  points,  and  if  so,  w^e  w  ill  pay  that  attention  to 
what  may  be  offered,  to  which  it  may  be  entitled, 
otherwise,  the  discussion  is  closed  on  our  part.  But 
here  it  may  be  asked,  how  are  we  to  account  for  the 
circumstance,  that  many  serious  and  intelligent  persons 
who  wish  to  "  worship  God  in  Spirit  and  in  truth," 
have  embraced  a  system  of  Psalmody  that  has  not  a 
single  text  of  Scripture  to  support  it ;  at  least  its  advo- 
cates have  not  been  able  to  produce  such  a  text. 
Some  have  embraced  it  from  the  strong  influence  of  the 
prejudice  of  education.  Some  have  not  the  means, 
or  a  sufficient  degree  of  literature  for  enquiring  accu- 
rately and  closely  into  the  subject.  And  some,  from 
hearing  it  frequently  affirmed  in  the  pulpit,  that  while 
the  Psalms  are  the  word  of  God,  "  hymns  are  not  the 
word  of  God,"  but  human  inventions,  and  to  sing  them 
is  offering  strange  fire  before  the  Lord,"  have  been  led 
to  think,  that  any  particular  inquiry  into  the  subject  is 


128  PSALMODY, 

unnecessary.  And  not  only  so,  but  the  bold  assertion, 
that  singers  of  hymns  and  spiritual  songs  are  liable  to 
be  smitten  down  by  the  immediate  hand  of  God,  like 
Uzzah  for  touching  the  ark,  or  to  be  consumed  by  fire 
from  Heaven,  like  Nadab  and  Abihu — the  frequent 
repetition  of  these  things  from  the  pulpit,  is  not  only 
highly  calculated  to  proselyte  the  weak  minded,  and 
illiterate,  but  to  keep  the  proselyted  steady  to  their  al- 
legiance. Hence  it  is,  that  some  who  have  embraced 
Dr.  P's  restricted,  and  exclusive  system  of  Psalmody, 
have  been  astonished  that  the  system  has  not  only  been 
questioned,  but  shown  to  be  destitute  of  Scriptural 
support  and  defence,  and  adverse  to  the  unity  and 
purity  of  the  church.  This  consideration  ought  to 
induce  all  who  love  "  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,"  to 
bring  not  only  their  own  individual  opinions,  but  the 
doctrines  which  they  hear  in  the  j)ulpit, — "  to  the  law 
and  to  the  testimony  ;  if  they  speak  not  according  to 
this  word,  it  is  because  there  is  no  light  in  them."  la. 
8:  20." 


NO.  XIV. 

Dr.  P.^s  proof  for  a  restricted  Psalmody  Examined — 
The  Book  of  Psalms  designed  for  a.  directory  of 
praise  and  prayer  to  the  Jewish  church. 

In  our  last  number  we  observed,  that  to  sustain  his 
exclusive  system  of  Psalmody,  it  was  indispensably 
necessary  for  Dr.  Pressly  to  prove  the  two  following 
propositions,  wdiich,  although  inseparably  connected, 
are  yet  distinct  in  themselves.  "First,  that  God  de- 
signed that  some  of  the  songs  of  praise  of  the  Old 
Testament  dispensation  should  be  a  system  of  Psal- 
mody to  the  church  to  the  end  of  the  world.     Sec- 


THE    PROOF    AT    LAST.  129 

ondly,  that  some  person  or  persons  were  divinely  com- 
missioned to  make  that  selection  and  collection,  and 
that  the  book  of  Psalms  is  that  collection."  Every 
reader  will  see  that  this  is  the  gist  of  the  question,  and 
where,  we  think,  any  other  man  would  have  begun, 
when  entering  upon  its  discussion.  But  instead  of 
this,  he  has  published  in  the  course  of  fifteen  months, 
eleven  or  twelve  numbers  on  collateral  ^ints,  and 
now  in  the  thirteenth  number  of  his  "  Preacher,"  he 
has  given  us,  what  it  is  to  be  presumed,  he  supposes 
is  the  justly  demanded  proof.  Although  long  delayed 
and  often  called  for,  we  are  glad  to  see  it  even  at  this 
late  stage  of  the  discussion,  and  as  promised,  we  will 
now  examine  it  and  try  its  strength. 

This  important  proof  consists  in  a  brief  scriptural 
history  of  Psalmody  from  the  days  of  Moses,  to  the 
reign  of  Hezekiah,  king  of  Judah;  and  whether  any 
of  his  quotations,  or  all  of  them  put  together,  prove  that 
the  book  of  Psalms  was  designed  to  be  the  only  sys- 
tem of  Psalmody  for  the  church,  to  the  end  of  time, 
will  be  left  with  the  reader  to  say.  The  first  of  the 
songs  adduced  as  proof  in  this  case,  is  the  song  of 
Moses  and  of  the  Israelites  at  the  Red  Sea,  recorded 
in  the  fifteenth  cha^oter  of  Exodus.  "  Then  sung  Moses 
and  the  children  of  Israel  this  song  unto  the  Lord ; 
and  spake,  saying,  I  will  sing  unto  the  Lord,  for  he 
hath  triumphed  gloriously,  the  horse  and  his  rider  he 
hath  thrown  into  the  sea."  We  confess  that  we  were 
surprised  when  w^e  sav\^  this  song  adduced  as  proof  of 
the  foregoing  proposition,  and  that  for  two  reasons. 
First,  it  is  not  in  Dr.  P.'s  exclusive  system  of  Psal- 
mody ;  and  secondly,  that  in  Rev.  15  :  3,  it  is  coupled 
or  connected  with  the  song  of  the  Lamb.  The  next 
of  these  songs  is  the  song  of  Deborah  and  Barak  re- 
corded in  the  book  of  Judges,  6:  1 — "Praise  ye  the 
Lord  for  the  avenorino^  of  Israel."  This  is  all  that 
Dr.  P.  has  quoted  from  that  song,  and  whether  there 
is  in  it,  or  in  the  whole  song  itself  any  proof  for  his 


130  PSALMODY. 

exclusive  system  of  Psalmody,  is  also  left  with  the 
reader  to  say.  From  these  he  passes  on  to  the  days 
of  David,  and  refers  to  2  Sam.  23  :  12,  for  addi- 
tional proof  of  his  exclusive  system  of  Psalmody,  as 
it  would  seem.  "  Now,  these  be  the  last  words  of 
David,  David  the  son  of  Jesse  said,  and  the  man  that 
w^as  raised  up  on  high,  the  anointed  of  the  God  of 
Jacob,  and  the  sweet  Psalmist  of  Israel,  has  said,  the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  spake  by  me,  and  his  word  was  in 
my  tongue."  He  closes  his  proof  on  the  first  propo- 
sition with  a  quotation  from  2  Chron.  29  :  26,  and  as 
he  has  italicised  tlie  concluding  words,  it  is  to  be  j)re- 
sumed,  that  he  considered  it  as  very  strong  and  de- 
cisive proof  in  the  case.  "And  he  [Hezekiah]  set 
the  Levites  in  the  house  of  the  Lord,  with  cymbals, 
psalteries,  and  with  harps,  according  to  the  command- 
ment of  David,  and  of  Gad  the  king's  seer,  and  of 
Nathan  the  prophet,  for  so  was  the  commandment  of 
the  Lord  by  his  prophets." 

Upwards  of  forty  years  ago,  when  we  came  to  this 
western  country,  the  war  about  Psalmody  was  as  hot 
if  not  hotter  than  it  is  at  present.  And  we  have  fre- 
quently heard  not  only  the  above  quotation,  but  the 
words  of  the  thirtieth  verse  advanced  as  unanswerable 
arguments  for  an  exclusive  Psalmody.  But  we  had 
no  colleges,  or  schools  of  Logic,  or  of  "the  art  of  right 
reasoning"  then,  but  as  literature  and  knowledge  in- 
creased, their  pertinency  and  force  passed  away,  and 
we  expected  never  to  have  heard  them  advanced  again 
on  the  same  controversy.  The  verse  alluded  to  is 
this — "Moreover  Hezekiah  the  king  and  the  princes 
commanded  the  Levites  to  sing  praise  unto  the  Lord 
in  the  words  of  David  and  Asaph  the  seer."  What 
now  were  the  facts  and  circumstances,  that  gave  rise 
to  this  command.  We  are  told  in  the  close  of  the 
foregoing  chapter,  that  Ahaz  the  father  of  Hezekiah 
"sacrificed  to  the' Gods  of  Damascus — cut  in  pieces 
the  vessels  of  the  house  of  the  Lord — shut  it  up,  and 


PROOF    TOO    MUCH.  131 

made  him  alters  in  every  corner  of  Jerusalem,  to  burn 
incense  to  other  Gods."  When  Hezekiah,  who  was 
a  pious  prince,  ascended  the  throne  of  Judah,  he  gave 
orders  that  the  house  of  the  Lord  should  be  opened, 
cleansed,  and  the  worship  of  Jehovah  re-established, 
and  among  other  things  that  the  Levites  should  praise 
the  Lord  in  the  words  of  David,  and  Asaph  the  seer. 
Now,  was  there  any  thing  extraordinary  in  this,  or  any 
thing  but  what  a  good  man  would  do  in  similar  cir- 
cumstances, and  that  any  person  should  infer  from  it 
that  the  book  of  Psalms  is  to  be  an  exclusive  system 
of  Psalmody  to  the  church,  is  surprising  indeed.  Be- 
sides, if  the  command  to  sing  the  praise  of  God  in  the 
words  of  David  and  Asaph  and  nothing  else,  is  per- 
petually binding  on  the  church,  so  is  the  command  to 
accompany  them  with  cymbals,  psalteries,  harps,  trum- 
pets, &c.  for  the  command  is  as  j^eremptory  in  the 
one  case,  as  in  the  other.  And  not  only  so,  but  ac- 
cording to  the  inference  no  part  of  the  book  of  Psalms 
is  to  be  used,  but  the  Psalms  composed  by  David  and 
Asaph — all  others  are  excluded  by  the  command. 

As  Dr.  P.  has  not  produced  a  single  jot  or  tittle  of 
proof  either  express,  or  legitimately  inferential,  for 
his  exclusive  system  of  Psalmody,  many,  if  not  all  of 
our  readers,  may  be  ready  to  say,  that  we  must  have 
misapprehended  him,  and  that  his  design  was  only 
to  present  us  with  a  brief  history  of  Psalmody  under 
the  Jewish  dispensation  of  grace.  We  would  have 
thought  so,  had  it  not  been  for  the  inference  which  he 
has  drawn  from  that  history ;  for  inferential  proof  is  to 
be  admitted  on  this  subject  as  well  as  on  any  other. 
His  inference  is  this — "that  if  it  can  be  made  appear 
to  the  satisfaction  of  the  reader,  that  the  songs  con- 
tained in  the  book  of  Psalms  were  given  to  the  church 
to  be  used  in  celebrating  the  praise  of  God,  it  will 
then  be  admitted  that  the  point  in  dispute  is  settled, 
for  with  all  who  receive  the  Bible  as  the  rule  of  faith, 
it  is  a  received  principle,  that  in  the  worship  of  God, 


132  PSALMODY. 

divine  appointment  is  our  guide."  The  reader  will 
have  now  perceived,  that  he  intended  his  history  as 
argument  in  the  dispute,  and  not  to  prove  that  the 
book  of  Psalms  is  to  be  used  in  the  praises  of  God  ; 
for  this  we  have  said  repeatedly  in  this  discussion,  but 
we  contend  also  that  every  portion  of  the  Old  or  New 
Testaments  that  is  suitable  for  the  purpose,  may  be 
used  in  that  part  of  divine  worship.  * 

*  In  the  ninth  number  of  his  "  Remarks,"  Dr.  P.  denies  that  he  de- 
signed the  above  brief  history  of  Psalmody,  as  a  proof  that  the  chm-ch, 
in  the  praises  of  God,  is  to  confine  herself  to  the  book  of  Psalms.  We 
have  assigned  our  reasons  why  he  did  consider  it  as  designed  for  that 
purpose;  and  we  think  that  there  are  few,  if  any,  who  will  attentively 
consider  the  above  quotation  from  his  sixth  chapter,  but  will  be  led  to 
the  same  conclusion.  But  as  he  r.ow  says  ihat  he  had  something  else 
in  view,  courtesy  requires  us  to  admit  it,  and  to  apprise,  the  I'eader  of 
this,  was  one  end  wbich  we  had  in  view  in  writing  ttiis  note. 

The  reader  may  now  consciously  ask,  what  then  is  his  proof?  This — 
if  we  understand  him  aright ;  for  he  tells  his  readers  in  this  and  preced- 
ing numbers,  that  we  ai-e  laboring  under  a  "  culpable  indolence  of  mind." 
"  In  pleading,"  he  says,  ''for  the  use  of  the  sacred  songs  contained  in 
the  book  ot  Psalms,  my  principal  argument  is  drawn  from  the  divine 
APPOINTMENT  ot  these  songs  to  be  employed  in  the  praises  of  God." 
And  then  he  adds — "  The  inspii-ation  of  these  songs  is  admitted  by  all, 
they  are  the  songs,  not  of  fallible  men,  but  of  the  spirit.  We  ai-gue  that 
these  songs  were  given  to  the  church  to  be  sung  in  the  worship  of  God, 
from— 

The  peculiar  character  of  their  matter. 

The  titles  from  which  the  Holy  Ghost  desigiiates  them. 

The  use  which  was  originally  made  of  them  by  the  church  of  God." 

Dr.  P.  will  probably  impute  it  to  "the  indolence  of  oitr  mind,"  but 
we  must  confess  that  we  cannot  see  in  this  statement,  "  a  jot  or  tittle  " 
of  proof  for  the  exclusive  use  of  the  book  of  Psalms  in  the  praises  of 
God,  more  than  in  his  brief  scripture-history  of  Psalmody.  It  is  freely 
admitted  that  the  book  of  Psalms  was  written  byinspired  men,  and  that 
it  was  given  to  be  a  system  of  Psalmody  to  the  church  under  the  Jewish 
dispensation  of  grace ;  while  all  that  is  perceptive,  practical  and  devo- 
tional, is  suited  to  the  praises  of  God  under  evei-y  dispensation.  But  still 
we  want  proof  that  it  was  designed  to  be  an  exclusive  system  of  Psal- 
mody for  the  church  to  the  end  of  time.  This,  he  tells  us,  "  he  draws 
from  the  divine  appointment."  But  where  is  this  divine  appointment, 
or  in  what  chapter  and  verse  of  the  Bible  is  it  recorded  ?  We  have  re- 
peatedly called  for  this,  and  now,  after  a  lapse  and  labour  of  eighteen 
months,  lie  cannot  produce  a  solitary  text  from  the  word  of  God,  which 
he  himself  will  venture  to  say  is  proof  in  the  case.  And  if  aU  which  he 
has  written  on  the  subject  was  reduced  to  a  syllogism,  it  would  stand 
thus — -It  is  evident  from  sundry  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  that  the 
book  of  Psalms  was  designed  to  be  a  system  of  Psalmody  for  the  church 
under  the  Jewish  dispensation  of  gxace.  Jt  is  also  evident  that  in  some 
of  the  Psalms,  sacrificing  is  mentioned  as  a  duty  incumbent  on  the  mem- 


THE    PROOF    A    TRADITION.  133 

And  as  to  the  second  proposition — "  that  some  per- 
son or  persons  were  divinely  commissioned  to  make  a 
selection  and  collection  of  the  songs  of  praise  under 
the  Jewish  dispensation,  to  be  a  system  of  Psalmody 
to  the  church  to  the  end  of  time,  and  that  the  book  of 
Psalms  is  that  collection,  the  reader  will  see  that  he  is 
as  lacking  of  proof  on  that  point  as  on  the  other.  He 
afhrms  that  we  should  believe  and  act  on  this  point  as 
he  does,  under  the  penalty  of  "  offering  strange  fire 
before  the  Lord  ;"  and  when  called  upon  for  testimony 
on  which  to  found  our  faith  and  obedience,  he  tells  us 
"  that  it  is  highly  probable  that  the  selection  was  made 
by  Ezra,  and  that  this  probability  is  founded  on  "  Jew- 
ish tradition."  But  admitting  that  the  Jewish  tradition 
is  correct,  still  we  want  proof  that  the  selection  and 
collection  were  made  to  be  an  exclusive  system  of  Psal- 
mody to  the^end  of  the  world.  Such  is  the  oft-re- 
quested and  long-looked-for  proof,  which  Dr.  P.  has 
brought  forward  in  support  of  his  exclusive  system  of 
Psahnody.  We  are  persuaded  that  there  is  not  an  in- 
telligent reader,  although  he  may  be  somewhat  preju- 
diced in  his  favor,  but  will  say  that  this  is  a  poor  foun- 
dation on  which  to  build  our  faith  and  obedience.t 

bers  of  that  church,  but  sacrifices,  with  the  whole  Jewish  ritual  have 
passed  away,  being  '^nailed  to  the  cross  of  Christ,  Col.  2:  14;" 
therefore,  according  to  Dr.  P.'s  logic,  the  book  of  Psalms  was  designed 
to  be  an  exclusive  systein  of  Psalmody  for  the  christian  church  to  the  end 
of  time.  The  syllogism  is  founded  on  our  opponent's  acknowledged 
doctrines,  but  every  reader  of  good  common  sense  will  see,  that  the 
conclusion  is  false,  not  being  contained  in  the  premises  ;  and  that  a  con- 
trary conclusion,  or  that  the  book  of  Psalms  was  not  designed  to  be  an 
exclusive  system  of  Psalmody  for  the  christian  church,  necessarily  flows 
from  the  preceding  premises.  We  would  observe,  however,  that  the 
book  of  Psalms  is  not  excluded  from  the  Psalmody  of  the  Christian 
Church.  It  constitutes  a  part  of  it,  and  may  be  sung  profitably  if  the 
antitypical  idea  is  affixed  to  the  typical  word  ;  for  in  Col.  3 :  16,  the 
Apostle  enjoins  it  upon  us  to  sing  Psalms,  and  not  only  Psalms  but 
"hymns  and  spiritual  songs,"  taken  chiefly  from  "  the  word  of  Christ," 
or  the  New  Testament  scriptures. 

+  Dr.  P.  thinks  that  it  is  a  matter  of  Httle,  or  of  no  importance,  who 
selected  and  collected  the  book  of  Psalms  into  a  system  of  Psalmody. 
But  as  it  respects  our  faith  and  obedience,  it  is,  in  our  opinion,  a  matter 
of  great  importance.     For  if  it  was  selected  to  be  an  exclusive  system 

12 


134  PSALMODY. 

We  would,  however,  say  that  the  j^overty  and  insuffi- 
ciency of  the  proof  is  not  to  be  imputed  to  a  want  of" 
zeal,  or  of  taste  and  talents  for  controversy  in  Dr.  P., 
but  that  there  is  no  such  proof  in  all  the  word  of  God, 
as  far  as  we  know^  And  we  would  farther  say,  that 
there  is  as  little  proof,  from  the  same  source,  for  those 
who  think  that  the  church  may  not  use  every  scripture- 
song  in  the  praises  of  God,  but  confine  herself  to  those 
songs.  It-is  but  for  such  to  take  another  step,  including 
the  w^hole  word  of  God,  and  they  will  find  themselves 
standing  on  a  firm  and  sure  foundation — "  the  founda- 
tion of  the  prophets  and  apostles,  Jesus  Christ  himself 
being  the  chief  corner  stone — in  whom  all  the  building 
fitly  framed  together,  groweth  into  an  holy  temple  in 
the  Lord."  And  to  induce  them  so  to  do,  we  would 
beg  to  recommend  to  them  a  serious  and  attentive  per- 
usal of  the  following  words  in  Col.  3:  17 — "And 
whatsoever  ye  do  in  word  or  deed,  do  all  in  the  7iame 
of  the  Lord  Jcs2is,  giving  thanks  to  God,  and  the  Fa- 
ther by  him." 

Before  we  close  this  number,  we  would  offer  an 
observation  or  tw^o  on  another  argument  which  Dr.  P. 
has  offered  for  his  traditional  faith  and  practice  on  this 
subject,  because  from  the  great  number  of  times  in 
which  it  is  mentioned,  it  would  seem  that  he  places 
great  dependence  upon  it.  It  amounts  to  this — that 
there  is  no  system  of  Psalmody  in  the  New  Testament, 
but  there  is  a  system  of  Psalmody  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ;  therefore  we  are  to  use  it  in  the  praises  of  God. 
But  there  were  reasons  why  a  system  of  Psalmody  was 
indispensably  necessary  under  the  Jewish,  but  not  ne- 
cessary under  the  christian  dispensation  of  grace.— 
When  it  pleased  God  that  his  church  should  assume  a 
visible  form  in  his  chosen  people,  the  Jews,  he  ex- 

of  Psalmody  in  all  future  ages  of  the  Church,  one  would  expect  clear 
and  abundant  proof  from  the  divine  word,  that  it  was  so  designed  and 
selected  for  that  very  purpose.  Can  he  mention  an  important  doctrine 
in  the  circle  of  Theology  which  demands  our  belief,  and  for  which  there 
is  so  little  proof,  or  rather  no  proof  at  all  ? 


DIFFERE^'CE    OF    DISPENSATIONS.  135 

pressly  commanded  them  to  worship  him  through  the 
ordinances  of  sacrificing,  praise  and  prayer.  When 
that  dispensation  commenced,  the  revealed  will  of  God 
to  man  was  very  limited,  and,  until  the  days  of  jMoses, 
was  traditional,  or  handed  down  from  fathers  to  their 
children.  Although  some  of  the  Patriarchs  were  con- 
siderably instructed  in  divine  things,  yet,  for  the  rea- 
sons assigned,  the  mass  of  the  Israelites  must  have 
been  very  ignorant  in  regard  to  the  real  character  of 
Jehovah,  and  of  the  worship  that  would  be  acceptable 
to  him,  and  profitable  to  themselves".  Hence,  then, 
in  the  nature  of  things,  an  express  and  precise  revela- 
tion respecting  sacrificing,  praising  and  praying,  were 
indispensably  necessary,  and  as  a  directory  for  sacri- 
ficing acceptably,  the  book  of  Leviticus  was  written. 
For  the  same  reasons,  a  system  of  Psalmody  was  also 
necessary,  and  hence  the  book  of  Psalms.  And  it 
cannot  but  have  been  particularly  observed  by  all  who 
have  read  that  book  attentively,  that  prayers  are  mixed 
with  the  praises,  and  thus  it  answered  a  two-fold  pur- 
pose, directing  them  at  the  same  time  for  what  they 
were  to  praise  God,  and  for  what  to  supplicate  "  the 
throne  of  grace."  Both  duties  are  inseparably  and 
wisely  connected ;  for  every  true  worshipper  of  God 
knows  that  when  he  "  praises  with  the  spirit "  he  feels 
a  disposition  to  pray  for  needed  blessings,  and  when 
he  "prays  with  the  spirit,"  to  praise  God  for  all  his 
goodness,  whether  of  a  temporal  or  a  spiritual  kind 
and  character.  Indeed  the  inspired  songs  of  that  dis- 
pensation appear  to  have  been  as  necessary  for  prais- 
ing and  praying  acceptably,  as  the  book  of  Leviticus 
for  sacrificing  in  an  acceptable  manner,  on  the  pre- 
scribed occasions.  It  was,  moreover,  in  many  things, 
a  typical  dispensation,  or  "a  shadow  of  good  things 
to  come,"  and  divine  truths  and  things  seen  as  through 
a  glass  darkly.  But  when  Christ,  .the  great  antif^'pe, 
came  into  our  world,  and  holy  men  were  inspired  to 
frive  us  a  fuller  and  clearer  revelation  of  the  way  in 


136  PSALMODY. 

which  God  desires  to  be  worshipped  now,  no  system 
of  sermons,  or  of  praises,  or  of  prayers,  was  necessary, 
but  the  minister  of  the  gospel  required  to  conduct  the 
several  parts  of  divine  worship,  in  accordance  with  the 
whole  Word,  the  infallible  rule  of  truth  and  righteous- 
ness. "  For  all  scripture,"  saith  the  Apostle  Paul, 
"  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profitable  for 
doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  insttuction  in 
righteousness — that  the  Man  of  God  may  be  perfect, 
thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good  works."  Let  it  be 
particularly  noted  here,  that  the  above  declaration  and 
suggestion  were  given  to  Timothy  in  regard  to  the 
whole  of  his  ministerial  duties,  whether  preaching, 
praying,  or  praising  God.  They  clearly  and  unequiv- 
ocally direct  every  "  Man  of  God,"  or  the  Minister  of 
the  Gospel,  to  take  the  matter  of  his  ministrations,  not 
from  a  j^art  only,'  but  from  the  whole  word  of  God 
that  is  suited  to  the  occasion.  But  according  to  the 
views  of  some,  when  the  iVpostle  said  that  "  all  scrip- 
ture was  given  for  doctrine,"  &c.,  and  that  Timothy 
was  to  take  the  matter  of  his  ministrations  from  the 
w^hole  of  the  divine  word,  he  should  have  told  him 
that  there  was  an  exception  ;  for  that  in  singing  the 
praises  of  God  he  must  confine  himself  to  the  book  of 
Psalms.  Unfortunately  for  such,  and  Dr.  P.,  Paul 
did  not  make  the  exception. 

The  foregoing  considerations  have  satisfied  our- 
selves why  it  was  necessary  that  the  book  of  Psalms 
should  form  a  part  of  the  Old  Testament  as  ar  direct- 
ory for  praise  and  prayer  under  that  dispensation  of 
grace,  but  not  necessary  for  the  church  in  future  ages  ; 
but  whether  they  will  be  satisfactory  to  others,  we  do 
not  know.  But  be  that  as  it  may,  it  remains  yet  to  be 
proved,  that  a  book  of  Psalms,  belonging  to  a  dispen- 
sation that  was  typical,  and  the  "  shadow  of  good 
things  to  come,"  should  be  an  exclusive  system  of 
Psalmody  to  another  dispensation  which  enjoys  the 
full  blaze  of  all  the  spiritual  light  and  revelation  that 


MISCELLANEOUS.  137 

God  designed  to  bestow  upon  man.  We  conclude  by 
observing  that  unless  some  other  proof  for  the  two  pro- 
positions stated  in  the  beginning  of  this  number  is 
brought  forward,  this  is  to  be  considered  as  closing 
the  discussion  on  our  part.  We  think  we  may  say 
that  Dr.  P.  has  not  produced  even  the  shadow  of  a 
proof  for  his  exclusive  system  of  Psalmody,  and  we 
will  not  carry  on  an  interminable  war  of  words  about 
collateral  and  immaterial  points. 


NO.  XV. 

Miscellaneous, 

When  we  closed  our  last  number  we  said  that  un- 
less Dr.  Pressly  brought  forward  some  scriptural  proof 
in  defence  of  his  exclusive  system  of  Psalmody,  the 
discussion  w^as  to  be  considered  as  closed  on  our  part. 
But  as  he  has  produced  one  scripture  passage  for  that 
purpose,  which  will  be  examined  in  the  proper  place, 
and  published  four  additional  chapters  of  "Review" 
since  that  time — this  and  some  other  considerations 
have  induced  us  to  write  and  publish  another  number 
at  least. 

We  therefore  observe,  that  when  we  wrote  our  13th 
number  the  8th  number  of  Dr.  P.'s  "  Remarks  "  had 
not  come  into  our  hands,  nor  did  it  reach  us  for  some 
weeks  after  that  time.  It  contains,  however,  nothing 
with  which  we  are  concerned,  but  a  supposed  piece 
of  wit,  which,  no  doubt,  gave  him  much  delight,  as  he 
adverts  to  it  a  second  time,  and  we  feel  no  disposition 
to  disperse  the  pleasing  sensation.  He  says  that  we 
have  admitted  in  our  13th  number  that  he  has  smitten 
us  to  death  as  Joab  smote  Amasa,  but  that  he  had  no 
12* 


138  PSALMODY. 

such  design,  but  only  to  draw  a  little  blood  to  cool 
our  fiery  tenaperament.  But  whether  through  design 
or  a  lack  of  perspicuity,  he  has  committed  a  palpable 
mistake  in  res-ard  to  this  famous  witticism.  Our  read- 
ers,  we  think,  will  have  observed  that  we  did  not  al- 
lude to  the  act  and  efficiency  of  Joab  in  smiting  Ama- 
sa,  but  to  his  "manner"  of  doing  it,  saying — "Art 
thou  in  health,  my  brother,  and  kissing  him,"  while 
malice,  arising  from  disappointed  hope  and  expecta- 
tions, was  rankling  in  his  heart.  And  it  is  left  with 
Dr.  P.'s  readers  to  say  if  his  conduct  to  us  in  this  con- 
troversy has  not  been  something  like  that  of  Joab  to 
his  brother  Amasa,  as  he  called  him.  Throughout 
the  discussion  he  has  addressed  us  as  "  venerable  Fa- 
ther," and  "venerable  author,"  while  at  the  same 
time  he  represents  us  as  destitute  of  moral  rectitude, 
in  misrepresenting  him  in  many  instances,  not  one  of 
which  he  has  sustained,  and  we  fearlessly  say  cannot 
sustain.  Many  instances  of  this  might  be  produced, 
but  the  very  first  paragraph  of  this  Sth  number  furnish- 
es sufficient  proof.  In  that  paragraph  he  addresses 
us  as  "  venerable  author,"  and  then  says — "  that  from 
some  infirmity  of  nature,  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  give 
a  correct  exhibition  of  the  views  of  our  opponent." 
And  on  what  now  is  this  serious  and  sweeping  charge, 
afi:e9ting  not  our  literary  but  moral  character,  found- 
ed? That  we  have  represented  him  as  complaining 
"  that  we  have  endeavored  by  wit  and  sarcasm  to  ex- 
hibit him  in  a  ridiculous  point  of  light,  while  he  has 
treated  our  hoary  hairs  with  merited  respect.'^''  And 
has  he  not  so  complained  *?  That  cannot  and  will  not 
be  denied.  On  what,  then,  is  this  very  serious  charge 
founded  ?  On  this — that  we-  have  quoted  from  his 
"  Review,  and  not  from  his  Remarks."  To  make  the 
matter  a  little  more  clear,  he  tells  us  that  he  is  pos- 
sessed of  "  two  different  styles  of  writing."  That  of 
the  "  christian  and  gentleman,"  which  he  says  in  a 
preceding  number  he  is,  and  which  he  used  in  his 


DIVERSIFIED    TALENT.  139 

Review ;  and  another,  to  which  we  do  not  think  pro- 
per to  give  a  name,  but  which  he  himself  calls  wit, 
and  which  he  used  in  his  "Remarks," — and  that  the 
words  "merited  respect"  are  quoted  from  the  Re- 
view, and  not  from  his  Remarks,  where  it  seems  they 
are  not,  nor  were  designed  to  be.  This  is  the  foun- 
dation of  the  above  serious  charge,  and  whether  it 
w^ill  justify  him  is  left  with  the  reader  to  say.  We  do 
not  envy  him  of  this  diversified  gift  or  talent,  but  w^e 
would  beg  leave  to  say,  that  he  should  change  the 
name  of  his  religious  journal,  for  we  are  persuaded 
that  some  of  his  best  friends  will  say  that  the  language 
occasionally  used  respecting  ourselves,  the  editor  of 
the  Presbyterian  Advocate,  and  some  others,  is  not 
becoming  in  "a  christian  and  gentlemanly  Preach- 
er." We  are  not  complaining  of  such  things,  for 
they  can  do  us  no  harm,  but  only  stating  facts  as  they 
really  are,  and  placing  things  in  their  true  point  of 
light,  that  the  reader  may  decide  correctly  in  the 
case. 

Our  readers  will  remember  that  in  our  11th  number 
we  proposed  to  Dr.  P.  to  select  a  clerical  friend,  and 
we  would  select  another,  and  submit  to  them  the  mis- 
representations alleged  on  both  sides,  and  pledged 
ourselves  that  if  they  would  say  that  we  had  misrepre- 
sented him  in  anything,  we  would  make  the  neces- 
sary acknowledgments,  while  we  expected  the  same 
course  of  conduct  from  Dr.  P.  He  has  not  availed 
himself  of  this  opportunity  of  removing  his  grievances, 
if  he  feels  himself  really  aggrieved.  We  will  now 
leave  it  with  the  reader  to  draw  his  own  inference, 
why  it  was  that  he  did  not  embrace  this  fair  opportu- 
nity of  relieving  his  character  from  the  charge  of  more 
than  one  misrepresentation  preferred  against  him,  one 
or  two  of  which  were  material  in  regard  to  the  point 
at  issue. 

The  7th  chapter  of  Dr.  P.'s  "Review"  consists  in 
a  train  of  loose  argumentation,  for  the  purpose  of  prov- 


140  PSALMODY. 

ing  that  as  there  is  no  book  of  Psalms  m  the  New,  we 
should  therefore  confine  ourselves  in  the  praises  of 
God  to  the  Psalms  of  the  Old  Testament.  As  we 
have  given  our  views  on  this  subject  in  our  last  num- 
ber we  do  not  think  any  thing  more  necessary,  and 
will  leave  him  to  settle  the  point  with  those  of  his 
brethren  who  think  that  we  may  warrantably  use  any 
rehgious  song  in  the  Old  or  New  Testaments.  We 
will  only  further  observe,  that  he  has  not  made  any 
attempt  to  prove  that  a  special  book  was  necessary  for 
praising,  but  not  for  praying  and  preaching,  under  the 
present  dispensation  of  grace.  We  have  never  met 
with  a. writer  w4io  takes  so  many  things  for  granted  as 
our  opponent,  Dr.  Pressly. 

We  have  observed  in  a  preceding  number  that 
Christ  is  represented  in  some  of  the  Psalms  as  coming 
into  our  world,  and  that  in  such  Psalms,  if  we  will 
sing  "  with  the  understanding,"  and  according  to  truth, 
we  must  substitute  the  past  for  the  future  tense  or  time. 
That  this  is  what  Dr.  P.  calls  "  singing  human  com- 
posure in  the  worship  of  God,"  and  w^hich  he  so  much 
condemns.  For,  what  is  human  composure  in  this 
sense  but  substituting  the  spiritual  meaning  of  a  typi- 
cal word,  or  arranging  in  verse  a  portion  of  the  Scrip- 
tures somewhat  differently  from  what  it  is  in  the  origi- 
nal language,  retaining  the  meaning  or  ideas  of  the 
original.  In  answer  to  this.  Dr.  P.,  in  the  Sth  chap- 
ter of  his  Review,  adduces  passages  from  the  Psalms 
in  which  Christ  is  represented  as  "  suffering,  dying, 
arising  from  the  dead,  and  ascending  up  on  high,  lead- 
ing captivity  captive."  As  it  was  not  unusual  with 
the  prophets  to  represent  future  events  as  present,  for 
the  purpose  of  assuring  us  of  the  unfailing  certainty  of 
the  event,  so  is  it  in  some  of  the  Psalms,  in  respect  to 
the  death,  resurrection,  and  ascension  of  the  Son  of 
God  to  glory.  And  such  Psalms  may  be  sung  with- 
out any  variation,  or  substituting  one  word  and  its  idea 
for  another,  but  will  any  man  say  that  we  can,  accord- 


SHIFTIXG    THE    DISCUSSIOX.  141 

ing  to  truth,  so  sing  portions  of  the  40th,  110th,  118th, 
and  some  other  Psalms,  which  represent  him  as  not 
come,  but  coming  into  our  world. 

There  is  a  little  piece  of  sophistry  in  Dr.  P.'s  ar- 
gument on  this  point  which  we  cannot  pass  over,  in- 
asmuch as  it  affects  our  own  argument,  but  whether 
designed  or  accidental  we  will  not  say.  It  consists  in 
changing  the  true  state  of  the  question  to  one  akin  to 
it,  a  practice  not  unusual  with  some  writers  when 
sound  argument  is  lacking.  "It  so  happens,"  he 
says,  "  that  every  w^here  in  the  Psalms  the  Redeemer 
of  the  church  is  presented  to  our  faith  not  as  one  who 
should  appear  in  some  distant  age,  but  as  already  en- 
gaged in  the  accomplishment  of  his  Mediatorial  work." 
But  the  present  question  is  not  when  did  he  undertake 
his  Mediatorial  work,  but  when  did  he  come  into  our 
world  for  that  gracious  purpose — surely  not  before  the 
book  of  Psalms  was  written. 

The  remainder  of  the  chapter  is  taken  up  with  a 
severe  attack  on  Watts'  version  of  the  Psalms.  This 
is  contrary  to  his  own  promise  in  the  1st  chapter  of 
his  Review,  that  the  discussion  should  not  relate  to 
any  version  of  Psalms,  as  they  have  nothing  to  do 
with  the  main  question,  or  the  point  at  issue.  We 
will  repeat  it,  for  Dr.  P.  seems  to  forget  both  it  and 
his  own  promise.  The  question  then  is — "Are  we  to 
take  the  subject  matter  of  our  praises  to  God  from  any 
portion  of  the  Scriptures  that  is  suitable  to  that  part  of 
divine  worship,  or  are  w^e  to  confine  ourselves  to  the 
book  of  Psalms."  We  believe,  and  contend  for  the 
former  proposition,  and  Dr.  P.  contends  for  the  latter. 
The  reader  will  see  that  everything  that  is  not  to  this 
point  is  irrelevant  and  unprofitable  wrangling. 

Although  Dr.  P.  has  headed  his  9th  chapter  "  a 
Review  of  Ralston's  Inquiry,"  yet  he  scarcely  notices 
us  or  our  Inquiry,  but  makes  another  severe  attack  on 
what  is  usually  called  Watts'  version  of  the  Psalms. 
Although  we  do  not  intend  to  assail  or  defend  any 


142  PSALMODY. 

version  of  the  Psalms,  yet  this  attack  is  so  manifestly 
unjust  as  entitles  it  to  a  passing  notice.  He  will  not 
allow  it  to  be  a  version  at  all,  but  an  "  Imitation,"  and 
in  proof  quotes  Watts'  own  words  in  his  preface— "I 
have  chosen  rather  to  imitate  than  translate."  But 
what  did  Dr.  Watts  mean  by  imitating  the  Psalms  ? 
Hear  his  own  words  as  quoted  by  Dr.  P.  "My  de- 
sign," he  says,  "in  short,  is  this,  namely  to  accomo- 
date the  book  of  Psalms  to  Christian  worship,  and  to 
make  the  Psalmist  speak  like  a  Christian,"  or  as  he 
would  have  spoken,  had  he  lived  under  the  Christian 
dispensation  of  grace.  That  is,  when  he  met  with  a 
typical  expression,  as  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats  as 
intended  sacrifices,  he  substituted  the  words  "the 
blood  of  Christ,"  which  they  typified,  and  so  of  all  sim- 
ilar typical  expressions.  When  Dr.  P.  and  his  breth- 
ren explain  the  psalm  to  their  hearers  before  they  sing 
it,  do  they  not  tell  them,  that  to  sing  such  passages 
with  the  understanding,  they  must  substitute  the  words 
"  the  blood  of  Christ,"  by  which,  and  by  which  alone, 
the  guilt  of  sin  can  be  removed.  Now,  what  is  this  ; 
but  doing  the  very  thing,  for  doing  which,  they  severe- 
ly condemn  Dr.  Watts.  And  we  have  often  wonder- 
ed that  they  did  not  see  the  strong  and  glaring  simi- 
larity between  their  own  practice  and  that  of  Dr. 
Watts  in  regard  to  explaining  the  Psalms.  The 
principles  on  which  both  parties  have  acted  is  precise- 
ly the  same — to  point  out  the  spiritual  meaning  of  ty- 
pical and  obscure  words,  that  the  worshippers  may  sing 
to  divine  acceptance,  and  their  own  spiritual  profit, 
for  we  still  believe  that  we  cannot  be  profited  by  sing- 
ing that  which  we  do  not  understand.  There  may  in- 
deed be  a  difference  in  the  two  imitations,  in  regard  to 
orthodoxy,  but  which  does  not  affect  the  principle  on 
which  both  parties  have  acted.     Watts'  imitation*  of  the 

*\Ve  have  no  reason  to  doubt  that  Dr.  Watts  called  his  versification 
of  the  Psalms  an  "  imitation."  We  do  not  know  that  he  has  given  a 
definition  of  the  word  in  his  preface  ;  but  from  what  he  says  was  his  dc- 


IMITATIONS.  14:3 

Psalms,  as  he  calls  it,  has  been  strictly  examined  and 
amended  by  the  Presbyterian  church,  in  its  principal 
judicatory,  and  judged  to  be  agreeable  to  the  scriptures 
and  our  Confession  of  Faith,  and  is  open  for  the  ex- 
amination of  all  who  please  to  do  so  ;  but  the  orthodoxy 
of  theirs  depends  on  the  Biblical  knowledge,  and 
soundness  in  the  faith  of  the  explainer  of  the  Psalm. 
There  is  another  little  difference  between  these  imita- 
tions, but  which  also  does  not  affect  the  principle  on 
which  they  are  both  based.  In  his  imitation  Watts  has 
changed  the  typical  word  and  its  literal  idea,  but  they 
retain  the  literal  typical  word,  and  tell  their  hearers 
that  they  must  affix  the  spiritual  meaning  to  the  word 
while  it  is  dwelling  on  their  lips.  How  it  may  be  with 
others,  we  do  not  know,  but  we  always  found  it  to  be 
difficult,  and  tending  to  produce  a  jumbling  of  ideas, 
and  confusion  of  thought. 

In  a  word,  the  principle  is  correct  and  good,  and 
when  judiciously  applied,  is  highly  useful,  and  sanc- 
tioned by  the  practice  of- the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews.  And  from  the  preceding  considerations, 
we  think  that  Dr.  P.  might  extend  to  the  Presbyterian 
church  a  Httle  of  that  "  forbearance  "  which  he  says  he 
exercises  to  those  who  think  that  they  must  use  any 
scripture  song  in  the  praises  of  God,  and  not  publicly 
brand  her  as  he  has  done,  with  *'  offering  strange  fire 
before  the  Lord."  If  we  are  in  error  on  this  subject, 
so  are  they,  although  it  may  be  in  a  less  degree. 

In  his  10th  chapter  Dr.  P.  endeavors  to  answer  an 
argument  of  ours  in  this  controversy — "  that  as  we 
use  our  own  language  in  prayer,  so  may  we  in  praise." 
He  tries  to  obviate  the  argument  by  pointing  out  in 
four  particulars  the  difference  between  praise  and  pray- 

sign  in  composing-  it,  Ave  think  that  he  might  have  chosen  a  more  appro- 
priate name.  He  tells  us  that  his  design  was  "  to  accommodate  the  book 
of  Psalms  to  christian  worship,"  then,  in  our  humble  opinion,  explana- 
tion would  have  been  a  more  appropriate  title  than  imitation.  We  are 
not  now  enquiring  how  he  succeeded  in  the  execution  of  his  design — that 
is  another  considei-ation,  and  belongs  not  to  the  present  question,  and 
the  point  at  issue. 


144  PSALMODY. 

er  ;  and  then  draws  the  conclusion,  that  they  are  so 
different  that  a  system  of  praises  was  necessary  for 
the  church,  but  not  for  prayer.  The  two  ordinances 
are  indeed  different  in  some  respects,  but  not  so  dif- 
ferent and  "  dissimilar,"  as  to  forbid  their  being  used 
at  the  same  time  in  the  worship  of  God.  If  that  was 
the  case,  then,  one  would  expect  that  they  woidd 
never  be  mentioned  conjointly  in  the  same  act  of  wor- 
ship, and  that  the  book  of  Psalms  would  consist  alto- 
gether of  praises.  But  let  any  man  examine  the  book 
for  the  purpose,  and  he  will  find  not  over  a  dozen 
of  Psalms  in  which  prayers  are  not  intermingled  with 
praises.  And  not  only  so,  but  he  will  find  prayer  fol- 
lowing praise,  and  praise  prayer  without  any  interven- 
ing matter  whatever ;  and  it  proves  what  we  have  al- 
ready said  on  this  point,  that  when  the  believer  "  2Draises 
with  the  Spirit,"  or  in  a  spiritual  frame,  he  will  pray 
for  needed  blessings,  and  when  he  "prays  with  the 
Spirit,"  he  will  praise  God  for  all  his  goodness  and 
grace.  Thus,  in  the  12th  verse  of  the  119th  Psalm, 
the  Psalmist  says — "  Blessed  art  thou,  O  Lord  ;  teach 
me  thy  statutes."  And  in  the  llSth  Psalm,  25th 
verse,  the  Psalmist  prayeth  thus — "  Save  now,  I  be- 
seech thee,  O  Lord ;  O  Lord,  I  beseech  thee,  send 
now  prosperity."  And  then  he  immediately  adds — 
"  Blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  ; 
we  have  blessed  you  out  of  the  house  of  the  Lord." 
According  to  Dr.  P.'s  views  on  this  point,  and 
to  be  consistent  with  himself,  he  should  never  sing  a 
Psalm  in  which  there  is  a  prayer  or  prayers  ;  and  if  he 
sings  such  a  Psalm,  he  should  pass  over  the  prayers, 
because  of  the  great  "  dissimilarity  "  between  prayer 
and  praise.  And  not  only  so,  but  when  he  prays,  or 
leads  in  prayer,  he  should  never  bless  God  for  his 
goodness  and  grace,  but  simply  pray  for  needed  bless- 
ings. But  we  are  persuaded  that  the  reverse  is  the 
fact ;  and  thus  the  objection  is  overthrown,  not  only  by 
scripture  facts,  but  by  his  own  constant  and  proper 


IRRELEVANT    PASSAGE.  145 

practice.     We  will  therefore  only  again  say,  that  the 
argument  is  unanswered,  and  we  believe  unanswerable. 
Dr.  P.  concludes  the  argumentative   part    of  this 
chapter  by  producing  1  Cor.  2  :  13,  as  proof  that  in 
singing  the  praises  of  God,  we  should  confine  ourselves 
to  the  words  of  the  scriptures,  and' of  consequence  to 
the  book  of  Psalms.     The  verse  reads  thus — "which 
things  we  also  speak,  not  in  words  which  man's  wis- 
dom teacheth,  but  which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth, 
comparing  spiritual  things  with  spiritual."     We  have 
often  seen  and  heard  these  words  adduced  as  proof 
for  a  restricted  system  of  Psalmody ;    and   we    ex- 
pected that  Dr.  P.  would  refer  to  them  in  the  course 
of  this  discussion.     If  they  referred  to  Psalmody,  they 
would  indeed  prove  that  in  praising  God  we  should 
confine  ourselves  to  the  express  words  of  Scripture, 
but  they  would  not  prove  that  the  book  of  Psalms  con- 
tains those  words  exclusively.     But  that  they   have 
reference  only  to  the  preaching  of  the   Gospel  is  evi- 
dent from  the  preceding  context.     In  the  4th  verse  the 
iVpostle  says — "  And  my  speech  and  my  preaching 
was  not  with  enticing  words  of  man's  wisdom,  but  in 
demonstration  of  the  Spirit  and  with  power."      The 
same  thing  is  also  evident  from  the  phraseology  of  this 
13th    verse — Man's    wisdom — speaking — teaching — 
comparing  spiritual  things  with  spiritual — all  of  which 
words  have  reference  to  the  preaching  of  the  word,  and 
not  to  singing  the  praises  of  God.     We  confess  that  we 
were  astonished  to  see  this  verse  applied  as  it  is,  by  a 
man  of  Dr.  P.'s  age  and  standing   in  the   Church. 
May  we  not  say  again  that  he  has  not  produced  even 
the  shadow  of  a  proof  for  his  exclusive  system    of 
Psalmody. 

It  would  seem  that  this  discussion  is  to  be  intermi- 
nable. Not  satisfied,  as  it  appears,  with  his  prowess, 
and  literary  achievements  in  warring  over  the  same 
ground  twice,  once  in  his  "  Review,"  and  a  second 
time  in  his  "  Remarks,''  Dr.  P.  has  commenced  a  third 
13 


146  PSALMODY. 

campaign  in  the  23d  No.  of  his  "  Preacher,"  under  the 
caption  of  "  The  Text  book  of  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh 
on  Psahiiody." 

In  the  1st  No.  of  this  campaign,  he  assails  the  Synod 
for  requesting  us  to  pubHsh  our  Nos.  on  Psalmody  in 
a  "book  form,"  and  affirms  that  the  Synod  is  respon- 
sible for  all  which  we  have  said  on  the  subject.  Few 
men  but  Dr.  P.  would  suppose  or  assert  that  a  simpl-e 
request  imports  all  this  ;  and  we  are  persuaded  that 
such  a  foolish  and  extravagant  idea  never  entered  into 
the  head  of  a  single  member  of  that  Synod.  A  num- 
ber of  men  have  heard  Dr.  P.  preach,  and  have  re- 
quested him  to  preach  to  them  again.  He  complies  ; 
and  does  the  request  make  them  responsible  for  all  he 
has  said  or  may  say  in  the  pulpit.  We  alone  are  re- 
sponsible, and  whatever  he  may  have  to  say  farther  on 
the  subject,  let  him  say  it  to  us,  and  we  will  answer  as 
we  can,  and  as  we  think  w^e  ought. 

.  In  this  No.  he  brings  forward  three  charges  against 
us,  or  rather  against  the  Synod  of  Pittsburgh  through 
us.  Two  of  these  charges  are  specified  in  the  1st  and 
2nd  Nos.  of  his  "  Review,"  and  replied  to  by  us,  and 
it  is  to  be  presumed  that  our  friends  in  the  Synod  have 
seen  the  replies,  and  been  satisfied  with  them  in  gen- 
eral. However,  that  he  may  have  no  ground  to  com- 
plain, we  will  again  briefly  state  these  charges  with 
their  replies,  that  the  reader  who  may  not  have  seen 
them,  may  be  able  to  decide  for  himself. 

The  first  is,  that  we  have  charged  him  wrongfully 
by  saying,  that  he  charged  us  with  "  holding  doctrines 
which  we  never  believed,  never  taught,  and  which  we 
rejected  with  our  whole  heart.*"  And  has  he  not 
charged  us  in  the  2nd  No.  of  his  "  Review,"  ''  with 
elevating  a  modern  hymn  to  a  level  with  the  word  of 
God,"  and  against  which,  "in  the  name  of  the  Pro- 
testant church,"  he  entered  a  pompous  protest,  as  if 
the  Protestant  church  had  committed  her  orthodoxy 
and  honor  to  his  safe-keeping.     Our   views    against 


CHARGES.  147 

which  he  has  so  pompously  protested,  may  be  briefly 
summed  up  thus — every  hymn  or  spiritual  song  which 
is  strictly  founded  on  the  word  of  God,  may  in  a  cer- 
tain sense,  be  termed  '*  divine,"  because  it  contains  a 
portion  of  that  word,  but  it  is  not  in  itself  any  new  or 
additional  divine  revelation.  And  we  appeal  to  the 
reader  if  it  is  not  calculating  too  highly  on  human 
forbearance  ;  first,  to  charge  a  man  with  holding  a 
dangerous  error,  and  then  blame  him  for  mentioning 
the  charge  for  the  purpose  of  exonorating  himself. 

The  second  charge  is,  that  we  represent  him  as  say- 
ing, that  hymn-singers  are  liable  to  be  devoured  by 
fire  sent  down  from  heaven  for  that  purpose.  Let 
his  own  words  decide  in  this  case.  He  had  told  us 
how  Nadab  and  Abihu  had  been  consumed  by  fire 
from  Heaven,  for  offering  strange  fire  before  the  Lord  ; 
and  then  says,  that  if  any  w4io  approve  of  his  views  on 
the  subject  of  Psalmody,  happen  to  be  where  hymns 
are  sung,  *'  they  are  compelled  to  be  silent,  lest  they 
should  be  chargeable  with  offering  strange  fire  before 
the  Lord."  If  there  is  not  a  complete  identification  of 
the  two  cases  here,  we  know  not  what  identification 
means. 

As  connected  with  these,  he  charges  us  with  draw- 
ing the  following  inference  from  the  preceding  premi- 
ses— "  That  it  is  truly  mournful  and  pitiable  to  see 
puny  and  sinful  mortals  desirous  of  seizing  upon  the 
thunderbolts  of  Jehovah's  ire,  for  the  purpose  of  hurl- 
ing them  at  the  heads  of  fellow  sinners,  because  they 
differ  from  them  on  points  not  essential  to  the  salva- 
tion of  the  soul." 

We  remember  that  when  w^e  wrote  this  sentence, 
we  had  in  view  James  and  John,  (Luke  9  :  54,)  who 
in  a  fit  of  intemperate  zeal,  once  desired  fire  from 
heaven  to  consume  the  Samaritans,  because  they  wor- 
shipped God  in  a  manner  different  from  w^hatthey  did. 
And  as  such  good  men  were  liable  to  such  ebullitions 
of  false  and  fiery  zeal,  we  knew  not  but  that  it  might 


148  PSALMODY. 

be  the  case  with  Dr.  P.  and  his  identifying  the 
*'  strange  fire  "  of  the  unhappy  sons  of  Aaron  with 
hymn  singing  more  than  half  convinced  us  that  it  was 
the  case.  But  as  he  has  heretofore  disavowed  having 
any  such  desire,  and  now  disavows  it  a  second  time, 
it  is  not  to  be  imputed  to  him  again,  and  we  have  ac- 
cordingly remodelled  the  above  sentence,  and  changed 
the  word  "  desirous  "  into  "  trying  to  prove,"  as  will 
be  seen,  if  our  Nos.  should  be  published  in  a  volume. 
The  occasion  induces  us  to  remark,  that  if  Dr.  P. 
w^ould  re-examine  some  of  his  language  respecting  our- 
selves, he  would  find  that  some  of  it  would  not  lose  by 
a  change  in  the  phraseology.  But  be  that  as  it  may, 
we  consider  it  not  only  a  duty  but  an  honor  to  correct 
a  mistake  ^thich  we  may  have  fallen  into  from  any 
cause  whatever.  To  this  we  will  add  only,  that  he 
now  sayS;  that  all  he  has  said  about  Nadab  and  Abihu 
— strange  fire  and  hymn  singing — and  consuming  fire 
from  heaven,  was  only  to  inculcate  the  necessity  and 
importance  of  worshipping  God  agreeably  to  his  own 
appointments  ;  and  that  he  had  no  reference  to  the  kind 
of  punishment  due  to  those  who  do  otherwise.  If  that 
was  only  his  design  he  took  a  very  unhappy  way  of 
communicating  his  ideas  on  the  subject.  But  christian 
charity  and  courtesy  require  that  we  should  admit  of 
his  explanation  ;  and  it  is  hoped  that  the  cases  of  Na- 
dab and  Abihu,  and  singers  of  hymns,  will  never  again 
be  identified  as  an  argument  in  any  future  discussion 
on  Psalmody.  It  is  a  scandal  to  religion,  and  a  dis- 
grace to  any  minister  of  any  branch  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church. 

The  third  charge  is,  that  we  have  said  that  Dr.  P. 
"assumes  it  as  an  admitted  truth  and  fact,  that  the 
book  of  Psalms  was  designed  as  an  exclusive  system 
of  Psalmody  for  the  church,  and  argues  from  it  accor- 
dingly, whereas  this  is  the  point  at  issue."  We  could 
without  fear  appeal  for  the  truth  of  our  assertion  to  all 
who  have  read  his  "Review"  and  "Remarks,"  but 


149 

he  himself  has  furnished  us  with  ample  proof  in  this 
very  No.  For  although  we  repeatedly  called  upon 
him  for  the  proof  of  his  exclusive  system,  yet  it  was 
not  until  the  Gth  chapter  of  his  "  Review  "  that  he  told 
us,  "  the  principal  argument  for  his  system  was  drawn 
from  the  divine  appointment."  His  apology  for  this 
delay  is,  that  he  was  engaged  in  reviewing  our  "  In- 
quiry." But  every  reader  of  good  common  sense, 
who  never  read  a  treatise  on  Logic,  will  see  and  say, 
that  the  proper  method  of  conducting  this  controversy 
was, — to  bring  forward  at  first,  what  he  supposed  to  be 
proof  for  his  belov^ed  system,  and  then  any  other  pas- 
sages from  Scripture  that  would  conduce  to  strengthen 
or  illustrate  that  proof.  And  when  after  a  lapse  of 
twelve  months,  he  produced  his  principal  argument, 
what,  proof  from  the  divine  word  does  he  produce  to 
sustain  it.  Will  his  friends  and  admirers  believe  it  ?  ■ 
Not  a  text — not  a  solitary  text  from  the  word  of  God, 
and  no  other  proof  can  be  admitted  in  the  case.  And 
now  may  we  not  say  that  Dr.  P.'s  restricted  system  of 
Psalmody,  is  an  unscriptural  and  culpable  restriction 
of  the  privileges  of  the  church  under  the  christian  dis- 
pensation of  grace,  and  that  his  attempt  to  defend  it 
has  issued  in  a  most  pitiable  manner.  At  least,  we 
think  so. 

We  have  now  replied  in  this  No.  to  every  thing  ma- 
terial in  the  last  four  chapters  of  his  "Review,"  twoNos. 
of  his  "  Remarks,"  and  the  first  assault  on  the  Synod 
of  Pittsburgh ;  and  w4iether  we  will  write  another  No. 
or  more  than  another,  depends  upon  contingencies. 
13* 


150  PSALMODY. 


NO.  XVI. 

Objections  answered — Charges  of  Misrepresentations 
refuted. 

As  it  was  in  the  1st,  so  is  it  with  Dr.  Pressly  in  the 
2d  number  of  his  third  campaign  on  Psalmody — there 
is  not  a  single  new  idea  but  one,  which  will  be  noticed 
in  the  proper  place.  As  if  conscious  that  he  had  lost 
all  the  ground  for  which  he  had  battled,  first  in  his 
"Review,"  and  again  in  his  "Remarks,"  he  breaks 
ground  the  third  time,  where  he  first  began,  with  the 
famous  words — "  human  inventions,  and  human  com- 
posure." But  we  are  at  a  loss  to  see  the  new  w^ounds 
which  he  has  inflicted  on  these  unfortunate  victims  of 
his  wrath — "  human  inventions  " — as  he  has  not  said 
any  thing  against  them  which  he  has  not  said  in  his 
"Review"  and  "Remarks."  It  is  wdth  reluctance 
that  we  repeat  what  we  have  already  said — but  it  is 
unavoidable,  or  suffer  falsehood  and  sophistry  to  pre- 
vail over  what  we  believe  to  be  an  important  truth.  In 
our  "Inquiry"  we  hav^e  said  that  "human  inventions 
have  reference  to  discoveries  in  the  useful  arts  and  sci- 
ences." This  is  the  primary,  proper  and  obvious 
meaning  of  the  phrase  ;  but  we  did  not  say  that  it  may 
not  be  used,  as  it  is  by  Dr.  P.  and  others,  in  an  impro- 
per and  unusual  sense,  to  denote  compositions  on  di- 
vine subjects  ;  but  their  using  it  in  this  improper  sense 
does  not  change  its  primary  and  proper  meaning. 

We  have  also  said,  "  that  it  is  the  subject-matter  of 
a  composition,  whether  in  prose  or  in  verse,  that  gives 
it  its  distinctive  character,"  and  which  is  admitted  by 
Dr.  P.  and  others,  "  that  there  cannot  be  a  greater 
perversion  of  the  established  meaning  of  words,  than 
to  call  a  hymn  or  spiritual  song,  founded  on  the  char- 
acter and  perfections  of  God,  as  developed  in  the 
works  of  creation,  providence  or  grace,   "  a  human 


BRAINLESS    DEFINITION.  151 

Every  reader,  of  go.od  common  sense, 
will  see,  that  unless  it  is  proved  that  the  plan  of  re- 
demption through  Christ  was  a  human  and  not  a  divine 
invention  or  device,  that  his  definition  of  the  phrase  is 
improper,  and  that  the  one  which  we  have  given  is  pro- 
per, and  agreeable  to  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  words. 

But,  says  Dr.  P.,  "the  Psalms,  when  corirectly 
translated,  are  strictly  divine  ;"  but  hymns  or  spiritual 
songs,  though  founded  on  the  word  of  God,  "  are  not 
the  word  of  God."  If  he  means  that  they  contain  no 
part  of  it,  it  is  not  true,  and  as  containing  a  part  of  it  or 
founded  upon  it,  they  may  be  as  lawfully  used  in  di- 
vine worship  as  his  own  sermons  and  prayers,  which 
are  not  a  strict  translation  of  any  part  of  the  divine 
word,  but  only  extracted  from,  or  founded  upon  it. 
And  it  remains  yet  to  be  proved,  that  praying  and 
preaching  thus  extracted  may  be  acceptable  worship, 
but  not  praising,  unless  the  very  words  of  the  scrip- 
tures are  sung. 

The  other  victim  of  his- displeasure — "  human  com- 
posure " — is  mentioned  transiently  only  by  Dr.  P., 
and,  we  are  persuaded,  to  the  great  disappointment  of 
his  friends  and  readers.  For  it  was  doubtless  expect- 
ed that  he  would  either  defend  or  amend  his  definition 
of  that  phrase,  and  which  we  have  said  we  could  not 
adopt.  He  defines  it  thus — "  Human  composure  is 
something  composed  by  man ;"  or,  in  other  words, 
human  composure  is  human  composure.  We  have 
acknowledged  in  our  8th  number  that  it  is  neat  and 
concise,  and  w^e  believe  without  a  parallel.  And  we 
are  persuaded,  that  should  Johnston's  and  Webster's 
Dictionaries  be  searched  from  beginning  to  end,  a  sim- 
ilar definition  could  not  be  found.  We  have  said 
that  we  could  not  adopt  it,  because  it  is  as  destitute  of 
brains  as  the  wooden  head  in  a  wigmaker's  shop  ;  and 
as  we  are  under  no  obligation  to  furnish  it  with  that 
organ  of  perception  and  thought ;  and  until  Dr.  P. 
will  put  brains  into  it,  we  must  abide  by  our  own  defi- 


152  PSALMODY. 

nition — "  that  it  is  a  composition  relating  to  human 
affairs  and  concerns." 

And  what  now,  if  his.  improper  definition  of  the 
phrase  "  human  inventions,"  and  his  brainless  defini- 
tion of  "human  composure,"  were  right,  and  ours 
wrong,  would  that  prove  the  divine  appointment  of  the 
book  "of  Psalms  to  be  a  system  of  Psalmody  for  the 
Church  to  the  end  of  time  '?  That  is  the  jDoint  at  is- 
sue— and  every  thing  that  does  not  tend  to  this  is  a 
war  of  words  ;  and  it  may  be  asked,  why  does  Dr.  P. 
contend  so  tenaciously  for  such  irrelevant  and  unim- 
portant points  ?  They  are  terrifying  words  to  the  se- 
rious, but  weak-minded,  and  found  to  be  the  most 
efficacious  means  for  proselyting  such.  And  all  who 
make  use  of  them  for  that  purpose  well  know  that  to 
wrest  them  from  them,  by  shewing  that  their  defini- 
tions are  irrational,  or  absurd,  reduces  them  to  a  state 
somewhat  similar  to  that  of  Micah,  when  he  said  to 
the  Danites — "  Ye  have  taken  away  my  gods,  (or  the 
idols  in  which  he  trusted  for  success,)  and  what  have 
I  more."  ^^H'lnc  tllcz  lachrijmce,'''' — hence  those  tears 
and  lamentations  ;  and  hence  it  is  that  those  terrifying 
words  must  be  contended  for,  to  the  utmost  extremity. 
We  think  that  his  best  friends  will  say  that  he  should 
not  have  brought  this  point  a  third  time  before  the 
public  eye. 

Tn  this  number  Dr.  P.  also  introduces  another  sub- 
ject which  has  undergone  considerable  discussion,  and 
in  which  he  gives  us,  not  argument,  but  much  dark 
and  equivocating  declamation.  It  respects  the  man- 
ner in  which  his  hearers  sing  some  of  the  Psalms,  after 
he  has  explained  them.  We  would  here  remark,  that 
whatever  is  moral  in  its  character  is  suitable  to  the 
worshij^  of  God,  under  every  dispensation  of  grace. 
There  is  much  of  this  in  the  book  of  Psalms,  and  such 
Psalms  may  be  profitably  sung  without  any  exj^lana- 
,  tion.  But  there  are  other  Psalms,  and  portions  of 
Psalms,  that  relate  to  the  Jewish  economy,  and  mode 


EXPLANATION    AGAIN.  153 

of  worship,  and  the  question  is,  how  are  these  Psahns 
to  be  sung  to  divine  acceptance,  and  the  spiritual  pro- 
fit of  the  worshipper.  Dr.  P.  told  us  that  his  hearers 
sung  them  "  literally  and  truly,"  even  when  the  Psalm- 
ist said  that  "  he  would  go  into  the  house  of  God  with 
burnt  sacrifices  of  fatlings,  with  the  incense  of  rams." 
We  were  astonished  at  this,  and  observed  that  it  was 
rank  Judaism,  and  that  we  had  always  understood  that 
one  object  of  explaining  the  Psalm  before  it  was  sung, 
was — to  tell  the  singers  that  in  singing  such  Psalms 
they  should  attach  the  spiritual  meaning  to  the  typical 
words,  "  the  blood  of  Christ,"  which  those  sacrifices 
typified,  and  that  this  is  singing  what  he  calls  human 
composure  in  the  worship  of  God.  He  continued 
sullen  and  silent  for  a  considerable  time,  but  galled  by 
our  adverting  to  it  at  diff'erent  times,  he  at  length  com- 
plained in  the  5th  number  of  his  "  Remarks  "  that  we 
had  misrepresented  him  on  the  subject,  and,  if  we 
understood  him  aright,  affirmed  that  his  hearers  sung 
such  Psalms  in  that  manner.  How  it  is  with  him  now, 
let  the  reader  judge  from  the  following  quotation  : — 
"  It  is  maintained  in  this  Text  boolc,  that  in  all  such 
cases  where  there  is  an  explanation  of  the  Psalm  be- 
fore it  is  sung,  the  congregation  sing  the  explanation 
which  has  been  given,  and  therefore  sing  human  com- 
positions. The  reader  who  possesses  but  a  limited 
store  of  common  sense,  will  naturally  ask,  how  can 
this  be  ?  The  Psalm  is  read — the  worshipper  has  the 
book  before  him,  and  sings  the  words  of  the  Psalm — 
how,  then,  the  reader  who  has  not  entirely  lost  his 
senses,  appropriately  enquires,  can  the  worshipper  at 
the  same  time  sing  the  explanation." 

It  may  not  be  amiss  to  observe  here,  that  when  this 
subject  came  first  under  discussion,  Dr.  P.  resorted  to 
a  sorry  quibbling  on  words,  and  it  is  left  with  the  reader 
to  say  if  he  does  not  take  refuge  under  the  same  con- 
temptible covering  at  present.  We  had  said  that  his 
people  sung  his  explanations,  and  that  this  was  virtu- 


154  PSALMODY. 

ally  singing  human  composure.  This  he  denied  by 
saying,  that  by  ^'' explanation^^  he  meant  the  very 
words  of  the  explainer ;  although  we  think  that  we 
made  it  sufficiently  plain  that  we  meant  by  the  word, 
attaching  the  spiritual  meaning  to  the  typical  words  of 
a  typical  Psalm.  The  whole,  however,  may  be  briefly 
summed  up  and  stated  thus.  If  Dr.  P.'s  hearers  sing 
typical  Psalms  "  literally  and  truly,"  then  they  sing 
Judaism  and  not  Christianity.  But  if  they  affix  the 
spiritual  meaning  to  typical  words,  then  they  sing  men- 
tal human  composure.  There  is  no  alternative  but 
not  affixing  any  ideas  at  all  to  such  Psalms.  We  ex- 
pect that  he  will  not  admit  either  the  first  or  third  of 
these  alternatives  ;  then,  we  ask,  if  written  human 
composure  may  not  be  as  orthodox  and  profitable  as 
that  which  is  mental,  or  gathered  from  the  explanation. 

Although  there  is  not  a  new  idea  in  all  which  he 
has  said  about  human  inventions,  human  composure, 
and  singing  the  explanations  of  typical  Psalms,  yet  he 
informs  his  readers  that  we  have  "  felt  rather  uncom- 
fortable "  throughout  this  discussion,  and  have  been 
*'  a  stranger  to  equanimity  while  in  the  field."  This 
is  a  new  idea  to  ourselves,  and  when  we  read  it  we 
expected  some  proof,  but,  according  to  custom,  he 
takes  it  for  granted,  as  he  has  done  with  many  others  of 
his  affirmations.  We  acknowledge  that  it  was  with 
reluctance  that  we  entered  into  this  controversy,  but 
when  engaged  through  necessity,  it  is  left  with  our 
readers  to  say  if  we  have  betrayed  *'  an  uncomfortable 
spirit,  or  a  want  of  equanimity"  throughout  the  dis- 
cussion. Our  health  was  and  is  feeble  and  precari- 
ous, but  yet  we  were  not  under  the  necessity  of  going 
southward  for  a  single  day,  for  the  purpose  of  recruit- 
ing perturbed  spirits  and  shattered  health. 

He  closes  this  number  by  trying  to  throw  off  the 
odium  of  being  the  assailant  in  this  controversy,  by 
saying,  "that  he  is  only  defending  *  the  advocates  of 
the  songs  of  inspiration  '  against  the  charge  that  they 


RECKLESS     PERVERSION.  155 

use  a  system  of  Psalmody  which  is  not  evangehcal." 
He  forgot  to  tell  his  readers  that  our  "  Inquiry"  is  a 
defence  against  the  charges  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Reid, 
whose  champion  he  is,  and  who  says  in  his  book  en- 
titled "the  Seven  last  Plagues,"  that  two  of  the  vials 
of  the  wrath  of  God,  mentioned  in  the  16th  chapter  of 
"  the  Revelation,"  will  be  poured  out  on  those  church- 
es who  use  what  he  calls  "  human  inventions  "  in  the 
worship  of  God.  When  Dr.  P.  joublishes  his  second 
edition  of  his  "  Chapter  of  History,"  he  is  requested 
to  publish  this,  as  a  matter  of  right  and  justice. 

In  the  3d  number  of  his  third  campaign.  Dr.  P.  has 
given  the  public  a  few  strictures  on  our  "  Brief  His- 
tory on  Psalmody,"  and  which,  we  think,  the  reader 
will  say  is  as  reckless  as  anything  that  has  yet  droj^ped 
from  his  pen.  We  have  said,  "  that  it  is  evident  from 
sacred  history  that  the  church  of  God  was  in  the  ha- 
bit, from  the  earliest  ages  of  singing  songs  of  praise  to 
him,  and  which  have  not  composed  any  part  of  the 
book  of  Psalms,  and  that  the  fair  presumption  is,  that 
they  were  the  productions  of  pious  but  uninspired 
men."  In  this  history  we  mentioned  the  song  of  Mo- 
ses, and  of  the  Israelites  at  the  Red  Sea,  because  it  is 
the  first  on  divine  record,  but  at  the  same  time  we 
distinctly  said,  "that  it  came  not  within  the  sphere  of 
our  Inquiry,"  because  it  is  an  inspired  song.  Now, 
will  not  the  reader,  when  he  reads  the  following  con- 
clusion, say  either  that  Dr.  P.  wrote  under  the  influ- 
ence of  a  perturbed  mind,  or  that  he  is  reckless  of 
what  he  may  say,  provided  it  will  prop  up  his  sinking 
cause  in  the  smallest  degree.  He  desires  his  readers 
"  to  pause  and  contemplate  this  admirable  specimen  of 
reasoning.  The  first  song  which  was  sung  by  the 
church  of  God  was  an  inspired  song,  therefore  the  fair 
presumption  is,  that  the  songs  which  were  employed 
in  the  Church  of  God  in  singing  his  praise  were  unin- 
spired songs.  Should  Dr.  P.  ever  have  mentioned 
the  word  misrep-esentation  ? 


156  PSALMODY. 

But  that  is  not  all.  He  passes  over  what  we  have 
said  on  that  subject  from  Gen.  4 :  26,  compared  with 
Psalm  105  :  1,  2,  and  what  is  said  of  the  religious 
songs  sung  at  "  the  feast  of  the  Lord,"  mentioned  in 
the  21st  chapter  of  the  book  of  Judges.  He  says  that 
the  song  sung  by  the  women  of  Israel,  on  the  occa- 
sion of  David's  victory  over  Goliah,  who  had  "  defied 
the  armies  of  the  God  of  Israel,"  or  of  the  churches, 
1  Sam.  IS  :  26,  was  not  a  religious  song  at  all.  To 
say  is  one  thing,  and  to  prove  is  another :  and  had  he 
proved  it,  still  the  other  instances  which  we  have  ad- 
duced sustain  our  affirmation,  for  he  does  not  dare 
even  to  look  at  them. 

The  next  objection  is — that  we  have  said,  "  that 
among  the  other  purposes  for  which  the  book  of 
Psalms  was  given  to  the  church,  we  cannot  but  think 
that  it  was  given  as  a  model  or  pattern  for  framing  her 
more  evangehcal  songs,  as  the  Lord's  prayer  was 
given  as  a  pattern  of  prayer  and  supplication  under 
the  present  dispensation  of  grace.  The  reader  will 
have  observed,  that  this  is  only  a  private  opinion,  and 
as  Dr.  P.  has  not  shewn  that  it  is  wrong,  we  must 
abide  by  it  until  the  error  is  pointed  out.  We  would 
not  have  noticed  this  at  all,  had  it  not  been  for  another 
conclusion  which  he  has  drawn  from  the  preceding 
premises.  *'  Where,"  he  asks,  "  is  it  revealed  in  the 
Scriptures  that  these  songs  (the  book  of  Psalms)  are 
no  longer  to  be  sung,  but  to  be  regarded  as  a  fund 
whence  the  Church  is  to  draw  77iiich  of  the  material  of 
her  songs  of  praise."  Now,  our  readers  know%  and 
Dr.  P.  cannot  but  know^,  that  we  have  repeatedly  said, 
that  they  may  all  be  sung  profitably,  even  the  typical 
portion  of  them,  when  the  antitypical  idea  is  affixed  to 
the  typical  word.  How  to  account  for  the  above 
charge  we  know  not,  unless  from  the  causes  lately 
mentioned. 

Another  objection  is,  that  we  have  said  "  that  a 
number  of  the  Psalms  are  so  constructed  and  expressed 


CLOSE    OF    DISCUSSION.  157 

as  to  shew  evidently  that  those  parts  of  them  at 
least  were  designed  as  a  system  of  Psalmody  for  the 
Jewish  dispensation  only."  We  have  said  so  when 
viewed  literally,  and  so  says  Dr.  P.,  although  he  con- 
tended for  a  long  time  that  his  hearers  sung  them 
"  literally  and  truly"  as  they  are,  without  any  regard 
to  the  explanations  given  by  the  officiating  minister. 
Alluding  in  the  close  of  this  number  to  the  words  of 
the  51st  Psalm — "  purge  me  with  hyssop,  and  I  shall 
be  clean,  wash  me,  and  1  shall  be  whiter  than  snow," 
he  says — "  It  was  evidently  not  for  a  literal  washing 
that  he  (David)  prayed,  but  for  that  spiritual  cleansing 
which  is  effected  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  This  per- 
fectly comports  with  our  own  views  of  the  subject,  but 
to  sing  these  and  other  typical  passages  literalhj,  could 
be  done  with  propriety  by  a  Jew  only,  whose  duty  it 
was  to  apply  the  water  of  purification  on  particular 
occasions,  and  to  offer  the  sacrifices  mentioned  in  the 
close  of  the  Psalm.  We  were  glad  to  see  this  at  last 
from  Dr.  P.,  for  he  was  far  from  being  open  and  in- 
genuous on  this  point  in  the  course  of  the  discussion, 
and  sometimes  shrouded  himself  in  pitchy  darkness, 
and  at  other  times  took  refuge  in  a  sorry  quibbling  on 
words. 

In  the  2d  number  of  the  2d  volume  of  his  Preacher, 
Dr.  P.  closes  this  discussion  of  twenty-two  months  con- 
tinuance. The  reader  is  aware  that  we  are  not  account- 
able for  such  an  unreasonable  protraction  of  the  con- 
troversy. He  was  the  assailant,  and  we  the  defend- 
ant ;  we  were  therefore  under  the  necessity  of  follow- 
ing him  in  his  course,  however  errant  that  course  might 
be.  As  it  is  the  last,  we  would  have  been  glad  to 
see  in  it  something  of  the  dignified  and  kindly  spirit 
of  "  the  christian  and  gentleman,"  and  not  that  of  a 
chagrined  and  disappointed  controversialist,  as  his 
readers  cannot  but  have  observed. 

In  taking  his  leave  of  us,  he  reminds  us  that  we 
have  said  that  he  has  adduced  1  Cor.  2  :  13,  as  proof 
14 


158  PSALMODY. 

for  his  restricted  system  of  Psalmody,  whereas  h^  now 
says  that  it  was  not  intended  as  proof  for  any  system 
whatever.  We  did  not  say  that  he  offered  it  as  direct 
proof,  but  as  inferential  only ;  and  whether  we  were 
mistaken  in  our  interpretation  of  his  design,  the  reader 
will  judge  when  he  reads  his  own  words.  "  The 
praises  of  God,"  he  says,  "  are  exhibited  in  these  di- 
vine songs,  not  in  the  words  which  man's  wisdom 
teacheth,  but  which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth."  Now, 
we  would  ask,  how  came  it  to  pass  that  Dr.  P.  con- 
nected the  book  of  Psalms  with  the  Apostle  Paul's 
expressions,  "  words  which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth," 
unless  as  a  proof  that  the  book  of  Psalms  were  design- 
ed to  be  a  restrictive  system  of  Psalmody  for  the 
church.  Besides,  this  was  in  perfect  unison  with  the 
expressions,  "inspired  Psalms,  and  inspired  songs," 
which  pervade  the  whole  of  the  discussion,  and  which 
every  reader  knows  were  designed  to  convey  the  idea 
that  no  portion  of  the  scriptures  are  to  be  used  in  the 
praises  of  God  but  the  book  of  Psalms. 

A  charge  of  a  similar  kind  and  character  immedi- 
ately follows  this.  That  we  have  said  in  our  14th 
number,  "that  his  important  proof  for  his  exclusive 
system  of  Psalmody  consists  in  a  brief  scriptural  his- 
tory of  Psalmody  from  the  days  of  Moses  to  the  reign 
of  Hezekiah  ;  but  which  he  says  was  not  designed  for 
that  purpose  at  all.  The  reader  will  judge  for  himself 
in  this  case,  from  the  following  introduction  to  that 
history  :— "  If  it  can  be  made  appear  to  the  satisfac- 
tion of  the  reader,  that  the  songs  contained  in  the  book 
of  Psalms  were  given  to  the  church  to  be  used  in  cel- 
ebrating the  praise  of  God,  it  will  then  he  admitted 
that  the  present  dispute  is  settled  ;  for  with  all  who  re- 
ceive the  Bible  as  the  rule  of  faith,  it  is  a  received 
principle  that  in  the  worship  of  God,  divine  appoint- 
ment is  our  guide."  That  the  above  quotation  is  a 
species  of  syllogism,  will  not,  cannot  be  denied.  We 
concluded,  therefore,  that  the  following  history  of  Psal- 


TWO    YEARS    WITHOUT    PROOF.  159 

mody,  if  not  the  whole,  was  at  least  the  principal  part 
of  the  premises  from  which  he  drew  his  conclusion  of 
"  divine  appointment."  Public  preaching,  praying, 
and  praising,  are  divine  appointments  in  the  worship  of 
God.  And  "  line  upon  line,  and  precept  upon  pre- 
cept," have  been  produced  in  proof  of  the  two  first 
of  these  appointments,  but  will  the  reader  believe  it. 
Dr.  P.,  after  nearly  two  years  labor  and  research,  can- 
not produce  a  shigle  text  of  scripture  in  proof  of  the 
last  of  these  appointments,  as  he  understands  the  sub- 
ject ;  for  he  says  that  his  scriptural  history  of  Psalmo- 
dy was  not  designed  as  any  proof  on  the  point.  There 
are  indeed  various  places  in  the  Old  Testament,  espe- 
cially in  the  book  of  Psalms,  where  the  church  was 
enjoined  to  sing  Psalms  of  praise  to  God,  and  under 
the  present  dispensation  the  Apostle  Paul  enjoins  it  on 
her  to  sing  not  only  Psalms  but  hymns  and  spiritual 
songs,  "  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  as  the  medi- 
ator between  God  and  man.  But  Dr.  P.  says  that  all 
these  are  comprehended  in  the  book  of  Psalms ;  al- 
though a  single  Psalm,  or  portion  of  a  Psalm,  has  not, 
and  we  believe  cannot  be  pointed  out,  which  speaks 
of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  that  mediator.  Some  of  our 
readers  may  be  ready  to  say,  this  is  strange,  very 
strange  indeed.  For  we  were  led  to  believe  that  the 
advocates  of  a' restrictive  Psalmody  could  at  any  mo- 
ment produce  scores  of  texts  in  proof  of  their  restricted 
system,  but  now"  when  pressed  for  the  proof,  they  can- 
not produce  a  solitary  text — at  least  this  is  the  case  with 
Dr.  Pressly.  Let  the  well-meaning  but  unlearned 
reader,  who  wishes  to  know  the  truth  on  this  subject, 
keep  his  eye  intently  fixed  on  this  circumstance,  and 
it  will  finally  lead  him  into  all  necessary  truth  in  the 
case.  We  add  only,  that  admhting  that  the  two  pre- 
ceding charges  are  well  founded,  what  would  they 
amount  to — to  misapprehensions  only,  but  not  to  mis- 
representations. 

But  the  comparison  which  we  drew  in  our  last  num- 
ber between  the  conduct  of  Dr.  Watts  and  of  Dr. 


160  PSALMODY. 

Pressly  and  his  brethren,  in  explaining  the  typical  j)or- 
tions  of  typical  Psalms,  for  the  purpose  of  accommo- 
dating them  to  christian  worship,  seems  to  have  incur- 
red Dr.  P.'s  highest  displeasure,  and  most  marked 
reprobation — so  marked  as  to  exclude  us  from  all  pre- 
tension to  a  regard  for  moral  rectitude.  We  have  said 
that  when  Dr.  Watts  met  with  the  words,  "  the  blood 
of  bulls  and  of  goats,"  he  substituted  the  words  "  the 
blood  of  Christ,"  which  they  typified,  and  that  Dr.  P. 
and  his  brethren  did  the  same  thing  in  their  explana- 
tions. On  what  we  have  said  respecting  Dr.  Watts' 
explanation,  Dr.  P.  remarks  thus  : — "All  this  is  said 
with  as  little  hesitation  as  though  it  were  a  reality  ! 
But  there  is  not  a  single  particle  of  truth  in  the  state- 
ment." On  what,  now,  is  this  very  severe  charge 
founded?  Does  he  mean  that  the  blood  of  the  Jew- 
ish victims  was  not  typical  of  the  blood  of  Christ  *? 
That  would  be  contrary  to  the  whole  drift  and  design 
of  the  Apostle  in  the  9th  and  10th  chapters  of  his 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  On  what,  then,  is  it  founded? 
On  this — that  although  the  phrase,  "  the  blood  of 
goats,"  is  used  in  the  Psalms — and,  by  the  way,  this 
neutralizes  the  one  half  of  the  charge — yet  the  phrase 
*'the  blood  of  bulls,"  is  not  used  in  connection  w^ith 
it.  It  is,  however,  implied  and  involved  in  the  13th 
verse  of  the  50th  Psalm,  and  we  remember  that  w^e 
had  that  verse  in  view  when  we  wrote  the  condemned 
phrase.  In  that  verse  Jehovah  is  represented  as  say- 
ing in  reference  to  the  Jewish  sacrifices — "  Will  I  eat 
the  flesh  of  bulls,  or  drink  the  blood  of  goats."  We 
need  now  scarcely  say,  that  before  the  flesh  of  bulls 
could  be  prepared  for  sacrifice,  their  blood  must  be 
previously  shed,  and  this  warrants  the  propriety  and 
appropriateness  of  the  phraseology.  And  not  only  is 
this  the  case,  but  we  are  persuaded  that  from  that  verse 
the  Apostle  Paul  framed  his  phraseology,  "  the  blood 
of  bulls  and  of  goats,"  in  Heb.  9  :  13,  for  we  do  not 
know  of  any  other  passage  where  bulls  and  goats  are 
mentioned  together  as  sacrifices  appointed  by  God. 


HYPERCRITICAL    OBJECTIONS.  161 

Some  may  think  that  the  15th  verse  of  the  66th  Psalm, 
"  I  will  offer  bullocks  with  goats,"  contains  a  similar 
phraseology.  But  be  that  as  it  may,  we  could  not  be 
far  wrong  when  we  used  the  Apostle's  phraseology; 
and  it  is  not  alleged  that  we  have  changed  the  spirit 
or  the  meaning  of  the  passage  ;  on  the  contrary,  we 
have  retained  and  preserved  both.  Dr.  P.'s  objec- 
tions, then,  come  under  the  category  of  what  is  called 
*'  hypercriticism,"  or  criticism  stretched  and  wrenched 
on  a  rack,  and  to  which  no  man  resorts  but  when  de- 
fending an  untenable  and  sinking  cause.  Perhaps  he 
may  say  that  w^e  have  overlooked  his  objection  to  our 
saying,  that  Dr.  Watts,  in  his  versification  of  the 
Psalms,  substituted  "the  blood  of  Christ"  for  the 
blood  of  the  Jewish  sacrifices,  and  which  he  seems  to 
deny.  Let  any  man  read  Watts'  versifications  of  the 
51st  Psalm,  and  deny  it  if  he  can.  We  will  add  only, 
that  we  are  not  to  be  considered  as  complaining  of 
Dr.  P.'s  unqualified  assertion,  "  that  there  is  not  a 
single  particle  of  truth  in  our  statement,  for,  we  repeat 
it,  it  cannot  do  us  the  smallest  harm  ;  but  we  would 
remark,  that  in  the  meantime  our  comparison  of  Dr. 
Watts,  and  of  Dr.  P.  and  his  brethren,  as  explainers 
of  the  Psalms,  stands  firm  and  unshaken. 

In  the  3d  number  of  the  2d  volume  of  his  "  Preach- 
er," Dr.  P.  brings  forward  an  objection  to  one  of  our 
arguments  for  an  evangelical  Psalmody,  taken  from 
Col.  3  :  16,  and  2  Tim.  3  :  16,  taken  in  connection, 
and  it  is  tlie  only  new  objection  in  the  whole  number. 
He  says  that  the  words,  "All  scripture  is  given  by  in- 
spiration of  God,"  in  2  Tim.  3  :  16,  refers  to  the  Old 
Testament  only.  Why?  Because  it  is  said  in  the 
preceding  verse,  "  that  Timothy,  from  a  child,  had 
known  the  scriptures  " — that  the  New^  Testament  was 
not  then  written^and  that  the  usual  language  of  the 
New  Testament  writers,  when  speaking  of  the  Old 
Testament,  was,  "  the  scripture,  or  the  scriptures." 
It  may  be  that  none  of  the  New  Testament  was  writ- 
14* 


162  PSALMODY. 

ten  while  Timothy  was  a  child  ;  but  how  was  it  when 
Paul  wrote  his  second  epistle  to  him.  According  to 
the  chronology  of  Dr.  Scott,  that  epistle  was  written 
in  the  year  67  ;  and  according  to  the  same  authority, 
the  whole  of  the  New  Testament  was  written  before 
that  year — the  2d  epistle  of  Peter,  the  epistles  of  John, 
the  epistle  of  Jude,  and  the  Revelation  excepted. 
And  not  only  so,  but  the  four  gospels,  and  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,  were  written  upwards  of  thirty  years  be- 
fore that  year.  It  is  to  be  presumed  that  Timothy,  as 
a  preacher  of  the  gospel,  possessed  those  writings  ;  for 
if  we  are  to  believe  Dr.  P.,  they  are  not  called  "  Scrip- 
tures "  in  the  New  Testament.  But  that  Peter  called 
those  parts  of  the  New  Testament  which  were  extant 
in  his  day,  "  the  Scriptm'es,^^  is  evident  from  his  sec- 
ond epistle  3  :  16.  In  that  verse,  alluding  to  the  wtI- 
tings  of  his  brother  Paul,  he  speaks  of  certain  unlearned 
and  unstable  men,  who  wrested  his  "  epistles,  as  they 
did  also  the  other  scriptures,  to  their  own  destruction." 
Now,  whatever  the  other  scrii^tures  alluded  to  were,  it 
is  here  evident  that  Peter  classes  Paul's  episdes  with 
them  as  scriptures.  And  had  he  even  succeeded  in 
detaching  2d  Tim.  3  :  16,  from  Col.  3  :  16,  as  a  pre- 
ceptive proof  for  an  evangelical  Psalmody,-  still  the 
phrase,  '*  the  word  of  Christ,"  in  the  latter  passage,  of 
itself  would  prove  the  precept,  even  according  to  Dr. 
P.' 3  own  definition  of  the  phrase.  He  says  it  means 
both  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  Be  it  so,  and 
what  is  the  consequence  ?  That  the  Colossians  were 
from  this  "word"  to  teach  one  another  in  Psalms, 
and  hymns,  and  spiritual  songs  ;  and  that  is  all  that  we 
have  contended  for,  or  now  contend.  In  closing  our 
reply  to  the  preceding  objection,  we  cannot  but  ob- 
serve, that"  one  would  expect  that  a  Professor  of  The- 
ology would  have  been  better  acquainted  with  the  chro- 
nology of  the  book  which  he  professes  to  teach. 

By  comparing  Col.  3  :  17,  "  whatsoever  ye  do  in 
word  or  deed,  do  all  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus," 


ABSURD    INTERPRETATION.  163 

with  John  IG  :  24,  we  have  thought  that  both  passages 
teach  us,  that  in  acts  of  worship  we  are  to  approach 
God  through  Christ  as  a  mediator,  and  "  the  only  me- 
diator between  God  and  man."  Dr.  P.,  however, 
understands  the  words,  '*  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Je- 
sus," as  importing  only,  "  that  on  the  performance  of 
duty,  whether  civil,  social  or  religious,  we  should  have 
respect  to  the  authority  of  Christ  as  our  rule."  Un- 
derstanding the  words  so,  let  us  now  see  how  they 
will  read  in  John  16  :  24.  They  are  the  words  of 
Christ,  addressed  to  his  disciples  respecting  the  duty 
of  prayer,  and  are  as  follows — "  Hitherto  have  you 
asked  nothing  in  my  name."  Now,  if  we  will  read 
them  according  to  Dr.  P.'s  interpretation,  they  will 
read  thus — "  Hitherto  have  you  asked  nothing  by  my 
authority — I  authorize  you  to  pray  now ;  '  ask  and 
you  shall  receive,  that  your  joy  may  be  full.'  "  We 
deem  it  unnecessary  to  say  a  word  on  this  point. 

Dr.  P.-  also  objects,  or  rather  repeats  for  the  third 
time,  that  we  have  said,  "  that  many  of  the  songs  in  the 
book  of  Psalms  are  typical,  and  cannot  now  be  used 
in  the  worship  of  God,  and  that  the  use  of  them  tends 
to  introduce  a  Judaizing  Christianity."  *  *  *  * 
"And  that  we  have  said  that  they  are  the  shadow  of 
good  things  to  come."  We  have  not  said  that  the 
book  of  Psalms  should  not  be  used  in  the  praises  of 
God  ;  but  we  have  said,  that  to  sing  the  typical  Psalms 
"  literally,"  or  without  affixing  the  spiritual  meaning 
to  the  typical  word,  is  not  only  introducing  "  a  Juda- 
izing Christianity,"  but  singing  Judaism  itself.  * 

*^  In  the  Stli  number  of  the  2d  volume  of  his  "Preacher,"  Dr.  P. 
presents  us  with  extracts  from  the  commentaries  of  Henry,  Gill  and 
Scott,  in  reg-ardto  the  excellency  of  the  book  of  Psalms.  We  cordially 
agree  with  those  Commentators  in  respect  to  the  general  excellency  of 
those  sacred  songs,  as  a  part  of  divine  revelation,  especially  as  it  re- 
spects devotion ;  but  we  must  be  allowed  to  demur  a  little,  when  it  is 
said  that  they  are  "  an  abstract  or  summary  of  both  testaments."  We 
have  shewn  in  our  "  Inquiry"  that  some  very  important  doctrines  in 
the  Christian  system  are  revealed  but  obscurely  in  the  Psalms  ;  one 
radical  doctrine — the  Trinity  in  Unity — is  not  mentioned  at  all,  but 


164  PSALMODY. 

And  as  for  our  saying  that  the  typical  portion  of  the 
book  of  Psahiis,  and  indeed  of  the  whole  Jewish  econ- 
omy were  the  shadow  of  good  things  to  come,  we 
have,  the  authority  of  the  Apostle  Paul  for  the  asser- 
tion in  Col.  2:  16,  17,  and  Heb.  10:  1.  In  the  first 
of  these  passages  the  Apostle  alluding  to  some  of  the 
rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Jewish  dispensation,  says — 

clearly  revealed  in  the  New  Testament.     They  contain,  however,  all  the 
divine  light  that  was  necessary  for  that  age  of  the  church. 

But  as  it  is  evident  from  references  and  quotation  in  this  article,  that 
i^  was  written  against  us,  we  demur  altogether  against  "  the  conse- 
quence "  which  he  draws  from  the  above  recommendations.  The  con- 
sequence is  this — "  that  the  principle  which  maintains  that  the  use  of 
the  scripture  Psalms  in  the  worship  of  God,  tends  to  introduce  a  Juda- 
izing  Christianity,  is  emphatically  New  School  Divinity."  As  it  re- 
spects ourself,  we  demur  against  this  "  consequence,"  for  the  following 
reasons.  1.  Our  readers  know,  and  Dr.  P.  should  have  known,  that 
in  this  discussion  we  have  repeatedly  said  that  the  book  of  Psalms 
ought  to  be  used  in  the  praises  of  God.  2.  We  have  not  said  that  the 
use  of  the  Psalms  in  the  worship  of  God  tends  to  introduce  "  a  Juda- 
izing  chi'istianity,"  but  that  the  abuse  of  them,  or  singing  the  typical 
Psalms  literally,  has  this  tendency.  3.  We  have  not  known,  nor  heard 
before  this,  that  Psalmody  was  the  cause  of  the  late  division  in  the 
Presbyterian  church,  into  what  are  called  Old  and  New  School  men, 
and  that  we  are  classed  with  the  latter.  Now  he  should  have  proved 
all  this,  and  disproved  what  we  have  said  respecting  ''  a  Judaizing 
Christianity,"  before  he  drew  his  "consequence;"  and  until  he  does  so, 
his  consequence  falls  to  the  ground,  notwithstanding  he  has  ordered  the 
words  "New  School  Divinity,"  to  be  printed  in  capital' letters. 

We  will  close  this  note  by  observing  that  this  is  nx)t  the  first  time  that 
we  have  had  reason  to  express  our  surpi'ise  at  Dr.  P.'s  dialectics,  or 
logical  syllogisms.  Objectionable,  as  we  have  shewn,  many  of  his 
"  consequences"  or  conclusions  are  in  this  discussion,  yet  the  one  which 
we  have  been  examining  is  so  palpably  absurd,  that  we  have  been  aston- 
ished that  any  man  of  common  sense  would  allow  it  to  be  seen  by  the 
public  eye.  Nor  can  we  account  for  it  on  any  other  principle  than  that 
he  expected  to  discredit  our  book  by  representing  its  author  as  having 
embraced  "the  New  School  Divinity" — a  word  so  indefinite  in  its 
meaning  as  to  include  any  kind  of  doctrine,  good  or  bad,  sound  or  un- 
sound. This  is  no  new  thing  in  the  controversy  on  Psalmady ;  for  as 
remarked  in  the  close  of  our  "  Inquiry,"  all  the  writers  before  us  on  the 
same  side  of  the  question  have  been  represented  by  their  opponents  as 
"  Semi-Infidels,  or  Semi-Socinians,  or  virulent  enemies  to  the  book  of 
Psalms,"  and  therefore  we  did  not  expect  to  escape  without  some 
charge  .against  us  of  unsoundness  in  the  faith.  But  as  these  pitiful, 
and  worse  than  pitiful  controversial  tricks  are  now  too  old  and  stale  to 
do  any  harm,  and  will  finally  recoil  on  the  heads  of  their  authors,  and ' 
the  cause  which  they  support,  we  will  dismiss  the  unpleasant  subject 
with  something  of  a  hope  that  they  will  not  be  repeated. 


DIFFEREXCE    STATEl).  1(3-5 

"  Which  are  a  shadow  of  things  to  come,  but  the  body 
is  of  Christ,"  or  Christ  is  the  substance  of  those  shad- 
ows. The  reader  will  have  seen  that  the  difference 
between  Dr.  P.  and  ourself  in  singing  the  typical  Psalms 
is  this  :  he  prefers  singing  them  "  literally,"  in  a  literal 
translation,  such  as  Rouse's  ;  while  we  prefer  singing 
them  in  what  is  called  a  free  translation  or  version,- 
and  in  New  Testament  language,  like  that  of  Dr. 
Watts ;  inasmuch  as  they  contain  blessings  purchased 
by  the  blood  of  Christ,  the  "  body  "  of  all  the  Jewish 
types,  or  shadows.  Or  as  it  is  expressed  by  John  in 
the  first  chapter  of  the  Revelation;  we  prefer  to 
sing  of  him,  and  by  his  name  "  Jesus  Christ,  who  hath 
loved  us,  and  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own 
blood,  to  make  us  kings  and  priests  unto  God  and  his 
father."  The  reader  need  not  be  told  that  this  is  a 
New  Testament  song  of  praise  to  Christ  as  mediator 
and  redeemer,  and  of  itself,  should  settle  the  point  at 
issue. 

We  have  now  replied  to  every  thing  that  was  deemed 
material  and  relevant  on  the  subject  of  Psalmody,  as 
advanced  by  Dr.  Pressly.  And  in  the  close  we  would 
say,  that  notwithstanding  he  assailed  us  when  in  a  very 
feeble  state  of  health,  and  protracted  the  discussion  be- 
yond all  reasonable  bounds  :  and  notwithstanding  he 
has  endeavored  in  the  discussion  to  fix  upon  us  un- 
soundness in  the  faith,  without  a  shadow  of  proof,  and 
to  exhibit  us  to  the  public  eye,  as  destitude  of  moral 
rectitude,  we  freely  forgive  him,  and  wish  him  well — we 
wish  him  long  life  and  good  health,  and  "  grace,  mercy, 
and  peace,  from  God  our  Father,  and  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord." 


THE    EXD. 


,^ 


.^^ 


DATE  DUE 

^^^^ 

m^ 

U^MMMi 

wm-^-'-- 

^^^^m 

0Mmm 

jti 

DEMCO  38-297 

^v  •*•> 


'p 


0    / 


•  •!» 


